osward mokiwa sudi vs republic 2019 tzca 169 12 june 2019

osward mokiwa sudi vs republic 2019 tzca 169 12 june 2019

The charge, though omitting the category of the offence and the victim's age, sufficiently informed the appellant of the case to meet and caused no prejudice; the variance in the date between the charge and the evidence was a curable error and not fatal; the voire dire examination was properly conducted; and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
osward mokiwa sudi vs republic 2019 tzca 169 12 june 2019
Parties
Appellant: Osward Mokiwa @ Sudi; Respondent: The Republic
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
12 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court, Which Affirmed the Conviction and Varied the Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unnatural Offence, Defective Charge, Variance Between Charge and Evidence, Voire Dire Examination, Standard of Proof, Contradictory Evidence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Unnatural Offence Defective Charge Variance Between Charge and Evidence Voire Dire Examination Standard of Proof Contradictory Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Osward Mokiwa @ Sudi

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court, Which Affirmed the Conviction and Varied the Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge was incurably defective for omitting the category of the offence and the age of the victim
  2. 2 Whether the variance between the charge and the evidence as to the date of the offence was fatal
  3. 3 Whether the voire dire examination of the child witness was properly conducted

Ratio Decidendi

The charge, though omitting the category of the offence and the victim's age, sufficiently informed the appellant of the case to meet and caused no prejudice; the variance in the date between the charge and the evidence was a curable error and not fatal; the voire dire examination was properly conducted; and the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite minor contradictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of thirty years' imprisonment affirmed