19920313 TZHC Mwanza
The conviction was based on an unequivocal plea of guilty. The forfeiture order, though made without inviting the appellant to show cause, was within the trial court's discretion and the irregularity was not fatal to the order.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19920313 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Appellant: Nyakibusa s/o Juma; Respondent: The United Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 13 March 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Importing Goods Without License, Forfeiture of Goods, Sentencing
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nyakibusa s/o Juma
Appellant
The United Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for importing goods without a license was proper
- 2 Whether the forfeiture order was lawful despite procedural irregularity
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was based on an unequivocal plea of guilty. The forfeiture order, though made without inviting the appellant to show cause, was within the trial court's discretion and the irregularity was not fatal to the order.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction and sentence affirmed
- Forfeiture order affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
r IN THE HIGH COURT OF T!:..WZ:il.H.\ NJ: MW.ANZt. li:PPELL.\TE .nmISDI011IQl\f HIGs: COURT CRIMIN,U, J:JlP!l:'.iL rm.327 OF 1991 _ (Oc-iginal Criminn.l Caso J:To.30 of' 1991 of tho Dist1~ict Cou::..-vh of Musoraa Dist1·icit at I1Iusoma.. .Bcfo.t>0 E.J. Mash2.gur, Esq. Resident fu(,"i.strn.to). NY/i.KIBUSUM. s/O JUMA 1.J'PELt.tliT (Original Accusod). Versus T1l.li: UNITDD REPOJ3LIC • ., •.,., • • e .. •., "•. • • RTilSPONJ>TIJ.ilr (Original Pro$ccutor) JUD GM EN~ SmJLE, J. The aP:_ocllo,nt wo.s ohD.1"@:ld and convicted by the Resident M;:.,gistrate Court of Mo~-ra Region at Musoma in Criaina,l Case lfoe30 of 1991 of the offence of inrporting goods without lico1100, contra.ry to soction 4 o.nd 20 ( 1 )( 2) o:f' tho L-nport Control. Ordinance Cai1 2i}2. It was n.llcgod in tho particula.1.·-s of tho offonco tll~:.t on or about the 5th day of ~·i:ur,ust 1991 at about 11.00 b.1•s. _o.t Kil•umi c~oo, n.long ~nrimo - Mwa.nza Road within tho Dist1~iot of Musoraa, l1fo.3.•a :D.ogion bo:h:ng a parson not liconccd to import goods§ did ir.iport 33 oa1.·tons of "Kwan.go. Sonp 11 valued d S.1s. 115,500/= from Konyr:i, to Te..nz2.nia - 1:r5.thout it'lport liconco. Tho conviction uns on his own ploa of 0 uilty. Ho was sentenced to pay c. fino of shs.3,000/= or six nonths imprisonment in clofnulto It wouli ap:r>c;_,:;? b.0 :PcJ,id tho fine. Tho 33 co.rtons of 11Kmmgv, soap" wore forfoitod to ·bho Govornmont. 1:.nd the Cott-rt record dhows, these items were lo.tor sold and a sum of Shs.16,000/= 11as rcclisod fron that sc.lo. find I suppose this is the ·anount of monoy which was forfeited to the Government. Tho appclla..n-c e;_ppoarcd in person to i.):.:osooutc his appeal. Mr. Magoma lorumod Senior State ,';.ttornoy cl.!)poe.rcd for tho Republic. Tho appcnl is clonxly in nzy- viou devoid of norits in as far as tho appcllo.nt I s conviction Wl',s concorn::iu.. His ploc:. was co:btn.inly from record of tho trio.,l Court, on m1.quivooo.l ono. Tho ncntcnco ir.,pcn,od-was_ in th.o circvnst~cos of' tho case p1•opcr. Jmcl tho forfeiture order wns lmrful as th0 tricl Court had tho discretion to nako such an ardor in t01•ms of section 20(2) 2 of tho Inport Control Ordina.."lcc, Cn.p 292 2.f't-::ir it had convicted tho e;gpollant. It is t.ruo tho tricl Court did not call upon tho app?lla.nt I to show cause e..s to why tho goods which were inval vod in tho commission 1 of tho offence should bo forfeited before mn.king tho Order for ··forfeiture. /, ~ it wc1,s obscrvod in tho Case R v li.bdallLl--1-i and 8 Others J7,2 IICD -Capo No.4§ it is proforo.blc for tho Cou:;_-1 not only to sho(_ hat it is considering whcthor to nako tho order of fo1·foituro but t'.lso to gte,tc why it li\:,o,e tho order. That is, tho record should show tho trial court ccincc:rnod had a.ppliod its raind judicially in dealing wiih tho quc~tion of forfeiture. ,I am·ho1rovo:c inclinod. to the view tlJ.2.t this irregularity was not fatal. I have seen tho a.ppollant at tho horU:'ine; of the appe?,,1., ho is la.mo. He scened to IJ.<.".VO been a victim of polio or such lcind. of ailment. 1.nd ho socr.1.ocl to a2,y, though not in elem• to1•ias, his condition ahoull h2,v0 boon syr.ip:~.thoticnlly taken into ccc0u11t :l.n this oattor, I suwose with roga.1.'d to the forfeiture O:i~dor. Th,-.t could be so, 1JUt as indioa.ted. above, I havo soon nothing ,f+'om tho fo,co of record which could tompt me to c1ltor the f01,:f0iturc Order which tho Coud had discrotfon to :impose. lJ.so th0 i1:1port licence tho appellant filod with his r,1)poa.l 'ooncornod othcx catogorics of goods diffm•cnt from those which woro a subject natter of this c~so. Thero is ono intriguing me,ttor. ..:.Cco:rding to ·tho ch2:cge sheet tho vo.luo of tho goods was show to 1)0 shs.115,500/.,.. fut tho record s!1ous thr.i,t when sold, they fetched only SJ.s.16,000/c:, - .. what happened ctlld i-mr.:.t was tho true vcluo of those itoms, T1..J.o e,ppcnl othorwiso horoby dismisood in its ontirGty. · Appo2.l disLliss.od. (Sgcl) W. II• SlilCULE J1JDGE 13-3-92 DGlivorod 0n this 13th da_y of Haroh 1992 in tho presence of 1 Mr. Mn.la.mshc. lo<'.1'.i2:nod St.a.to ~tornoy. Mwanza, \ \ i": • TI. SEK:Ul..E 13th March 1992. J]DGE / 3 I certify that this is a trllif copy of the o:-.:':i.[;:i.nal • ---~~ ....• DISl'Ricr RroISI1RAR MtTfi.l.iJZ.A. 30/4/92