19891219 TZHC Mtwara
- Citation
- 19891219 TZHC Mtwara
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 19 December 1989
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 19 December 1989
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The conviction for theft was upheld based on strong circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The sentence for theft was appropriate given the value of the stolen property. The conviction and sentence for escape from lawful custody were quashed as the appellant was not charged or given an opportunity to answer the charge, violating procedural requirements.
Court disposition
Appeal partly allowed
Orders
- Conviction and sentence for theft upheld
- Conviction and sentence for escape from lawful custody quashed and set aside
02
Material facts
Parties
Philimon Kitunda
AppellantRepublic
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Sangawc, State AttorneyAmounts and remedies
- Value of Stolen Properties: TZS 150,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conviction for theft was supported by evidence
- 02
Whether the sentence for theft was appropriate
- 03
Whether the conviction and sentence for escape from lawful custody were lawful
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant denied the charge, claiming he was sick in bed at the time of the offence and called a witness to support his alibi.
- Respondent
- The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's presence at the scene, his actions before and after the theft, and physical evidence linking him to the crime.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Penal Code section 114(2); Criminal Procedure Act section 18
A magistrate may only convict and sentence for contempt of court committed in his presence under section 114(2) of the Penal Code; for other offences committed in his presence, the magistrate must order arrest as per section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The conviction for theft was upheld based on strong circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The sentence for theft was appropriate given the value of the stolen property. The conviction and sentence for escape from lawful custody were quashed as the appellant was not charged or given an opportunity to answer the charge, violating procedural requirements.
Obiter and limits
- There was no reason for the prosecution witnesses to lie against the appellant.
- The identification of the appellant was reliable due to prior acquaintance with key witnesses.
Court disposition
Appeal partly allowed
- Conviction and sentence for theft upheld
- Conviction and sentence for escape from lawful custody quashed and set aside
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 19 December 1989
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 19 December 1989
TIT THE ITIGH COURT OF.. T;'JfZA11li AT I~TWARA ~~?31,Ll~T.;] JllilISDICTIOl; (Mt1-iv..r2. Rcgisfa,y) m:crn COURT CilJ1iIN.:iL li.PP.&i,L ·.. . .No.· 57 OF 1988. . . / O:i.~ic~in.il Crir:iinal On.so Ho. 94 of 1987 of the Dict,ict · Cou:rt o:f !,Thi111:;t:, District c,t Mbinc.::. Dofo:rci c.J o Li tanda :Csq_. $ Dir.trict lil3.t.,"'istrato PHILmON ICTTulJND.A ................ -~ ~ .APPELLtJ:rT Versus • 0 0 C a e o • O Ct O o o o o O O O O O O i.r.JSPOIIDEJ\TJJ.l JUD ·GM E 1'J T MADU.1.,. J. Phil:i.non Kin1.,u1.c1;:, WG3 convicted 'by t!:o diotrict court r~t J,fohl(;a of stoaling•. · Ho was ::;011toncod to five ;yo::.:-..·s inp::. isonaont. 0 Ile osc2,ped from tho court roon c.n soon 'as tho..t sontonrJ~ wr.:.s yironouncod, c.nd for that, tho trial nagistr2..to sentenced hin -to ono ioffi' :i;·:p:.·isorlfJont, without D.nY charge beinc· franod ~;-a-inst :11:.1. · Tho appccl is c,r;r.:,.inst t;:,o convictions ond. sontcnco. Tho cviclcmco c',[;ainst tho appollaiJt in :;.•cspoct • I of tho . chl!.!'c-;o of stca.linc we..r: cil"CUI:1fJt,::l1tiGlo It wn.s briefly f',O fo1.lows!"_ ,on 5 1'..U[;ust, 1987 at about 8:00 p.n.· ·-t}w '::-::ppolla11t· wont to LV.3'C,l'i villL:€'0 office who:ro he found the watchi::2..n,: ·p1h Bal thc:.itari Kapinca. The c-,ppollant .11c,s with another :person. Tl1e:r0 1rt. a e, villcgc bus imrkod outsiclc t:10 villc:cc office. The appellant· said t:1r-t:~
l:o rnd hio cor.1panion· wo:ro loo kine f 01" a :place to .sleep. The watchna.ri. callccl his: ion - c~lls lor:.t1cr, PH2 1.J.oysc rfotor:i.iJO, ir:.10 offered. ther:4· o!'~ooo in his house for tho nicht •. '1;:,.o o.p11~llant. then crr._vo tho watcbnan- a drink in 8- bottle sc1:yine· it .,vcs 2, soft drink. Tho watcbna.n drank_ it as tllc,· c..ppolle..nt wont to sloop in· tho ton - cells locil.or 1 s .houso. As soon .i:.,s tho 2-111)01la,nt ·and his conpanio:.1 loft, tho watcbnan 1:iccune unwell and lost consciousness • .On tho followinc; · r.1orning, tho ton - eolls loi),(lor woke u11 but he did not soc tho 2.1:i1cllant or ltls conpnnion. Ho wont to tho villri,gc . office a.l:ld f6uncl t:·~o we-tchr.ien, w2.s unconscious. Sovorn1 p[>,j?ts lk'l.d boon disnc1..ntlod c-.,nd j70;·.1ovod fro□ t'.10· bus. . Those incl udod tho r0r:~· irl1c0ls and two'.:a.xloe, covo:i.•s bolts and :.-oductio.n gor-,r. Tho .villaco ) ' I 2 lead.ors wcro cc,llctl to t:10 scone.. T;.10~- ?Olma oj_l c::11,1 crease cll ov0r the area. Tho ui tr.coses w:10 inclnclod -~~.,o vHl:::,:;o ch:-:dJ:nan PW9 /J.cx Kapinga. 9 v.Ul~oJ:e.aCliiotb.:r.y PU3 Gcrc:~ld Kc0in:;o., tlYJ r~:;n!)o;..'o 0f i:110 villc,eo conni ttoo e.11tl ·c)·:.o c-:.rivo1~ of tho bus 1 PW3 Dd:dn Kc.1n.ll['C~o Tl-.c wi tnosscs noticctl sol'o r.:;~•ks of ·s1:.oos fror.i tho ton-colls loc.d.or' s hot.,oo uhoro tho twenty pr.cos r,,·,2.Yo · T~10
ton ...; cells lo2Llc:r roco.llod t!1at tho r;:)pollant had nany spanners :j.n t'.10 b::-..g which ho carried tho p:covi.ous ni 0ht. They .traced tho solo mr..:cks. ·r:.w;r sent tlio watclma,n to Li tcDbo hospital. The appellant who was known to t>.o ton - cells loE,,lcr 1-;~,r.:i r..:J:-:?o st:;d 6.t Li tcr.11)O villaee. Tho wc.tchr.1::-,n rc:~·[l.~1od consciousness thi~co. dc',YG 12.t,,r. Tho doctor who oxanincd nncl t:;:,ontod. Mn, PW7 Dr •. Walla, sc.id thfat tho watchnr.n ha..d boon poisoned.: When tho c,i):'ullv.,nt -,ms arrostocl in :.1is house, t!,.o folloui:ng <lay, shoes . .. were found in ·-t;1.~o :. .ot:.Go ruicl tho shoos rosonblod t:.lc r.12'.rks w';.lich wo1·e seen 1 on tho c,Totmcl iJ0~,:0011 tho ten - cells lcriL01·' s house. cm tho npot where the bus was pr..:rkod 0L,t1Jiclo tho villc,.:::o office. TLo shoes wc:i:'c cove:;:cd with grease and oil. T.1-1.o 2.pp9llc.:nt cloniod t~1c ch2:c30 r:::2,yinc th2.t on tl10 dey the offence was cor:u:.u.t-to<l ho H8.S in bed cs b:) w2.c :Jicko Ile ccllccl a .wi tnoss who said that t:·,c r..ppdlc.x1t w~s sick fJ.~o;:i 4- LuL:,ust 1987 to .7 Aucust 19~7• The theft wc,s cor2U.ttod on 6 Auc;ust: 19D7 $ Tl10 1o.s.rnGcLa CLJ.si:;1~10 ,. ' t. ro, t c, in r, Holl - rcasorio.d. ju.d.~~mt, ' • t r.1-?{;J.s believed tho prosecution ov:i.:Lonco anc. 1·ojoctod tl10 clilJi. Tl10 ton - ccl~s loader, PW2 JJ.oyso Hc,too1Jo lmow tLo
~:.ppolln:nt bofo:fo, · ml th2,,t· w2..s t!10 :-0<1.son he , . . . acrood to give o.cco;:,oc1r,tion to tho ap:pclla.nt an.cl 1-~is ·co'-1:p2nio11. Thero was absolutely no :2cr.oon for tho witness to tell lies 2c;c::.inst tho [l.ppollant. In view of tho fLct th:::t PW2 Il-)c:.tor:1bo _kncu t:1c· cppollo,nt ;:i.t~d t:ioy hoo .a discussion 2nd WGlkod. tocc.thor to tho house lrhcro tho a.p:pollc.n~ was sho~m a place to sloop, t:'.cro cr,n ~o no quostion of ni~teJrnn idonti ty• · The . . . ·~ watcl:u:ian PT:11 Bcl t;:·,zc..;:' too sn.w tho c.ppol,l_cnt cl t:\01,.v;h he .cli~l not' know hi.o before. Thero is no don~J"l:i th,:t tLo appellant ·offor,,cl the ..d.rink to tho watchman ·,, to render tho 1mtc~"i:1Gl'l unconscious so c.:.s i;o fr. cHi tci0 qonuission of tbs offence. TJ.10:c·o is rlso t;,20 iact tl:c.t tho ::.})116112,nt wo,s cru.~r-Jo":i.n~ spanners with which ho 10.otor ron9vod the p2.rts of -;;!,o 1ms;·:•Tho 2,ppol],.2.nt e.:.½.ose i;o leave his host's house w:1ilo his· host sl0pt. ITo did so to r:ldco sure tlw.-ti" · his host clid not know whr;t l10 wc.s doin..:;o ' J;J.l these fc'.cps, <~,nd t~:o :.. 3 undisputed fr-,.ct t:12..t tl'-c shoos four~l in :u.n :1ouso 2- fow houxs rotor tho theft were full oi :°;°'"-'c0sc 2..ml oil irrosi::.rtibly point to one conclusion only. The appollr·.nt r.m:!. ll.is conpc.nion stole t).10 ::.,x::rts fTon tho bus. Tho circunstanti.:,,l
ovic:.onc0 ostc..blishoc:.. tl~2-,t tho l\ppollant cor.ir:ri. ttod tho o~f 0nco as chCJ:'(,"OClo I-Ic,vinc boliovod tho rircsocution evidence, tho learned .I 1.. s for ~,catonco 9 it is not oxcoss:i.vo. It is tho- bare r;iinirn.m. 'J.1+1e vcluo of tho stolon pI'oportios io s:-.s. 150,000/=• Tho bus bclo:ncs to a rogistred vil12{.:;e. In any ccoo 9 conside:rincs · tho vcJ.ue of the stolen properties, the nontonco is 8,I>pro}.)riatc, 2.11d. it is uphold. I now tu:rn to consider tho conviction c..nd sentence of ~noy ycnx ioprisoru~1ont l'o:c' ococ,ri:rl(; fro □ le,wful cus.tody. 'E:10 lon:.."l1od Dl¼3°ist:rato passed the sc;.:tonco u>on tho appellant r2..11 out of the court 1•oon. The ar,pollnnt had not ;:xJOl'?, che.J:-cod, c:md, tho1~ofox-0 1 no cb:ircc ,m.s roe.d over to hin. The fa,ct t)::.2..t t:.rn offence wc-.s con::1i ttou i11 tho p::eoscnco of the· rae.gistratc dicl not e:,'ivc powers to the -t:rid r..12,3istr2.to t·o sentence tho a:ppclln.nt foi· tl:.o offonc.:;. It is only ~:.,-1,.1-01' ::ioction 114(2) of the Penal Code thut c lT: :_;iut:c,.,,to r.:c".y convict 2..nd. sontonco .-:, pi,-rson for a contcopt of court conni ttocL in :::i.c· j;>j~osonco. If onot::or o:i'?:fonco is conni ttod in the presence of 2, no,r;isti•e,to 1 tho only c,ction t: ,o □8,gistrr.to nc-w take is to order tho 2..:r1~or;t o:i~ l1ir1solf arrest tho off ender · e,s provided in section 18 of t:,o
C:dr.1ino.J. p:.;.~ocorlu:co Act. Tho~.·o is no other provision in the law whicL Civoe powers to ;;. n.::eistn,to to se::ntoncc a person on tho spot for offences coLmi ttocl in tho l)rcsenoo of tho :·:2.{;istro,tc wi.tllout a char~e boin5 frDnod r-11cL l'C[',(.1 over to t:10 cccus,:,d l)O:.C.'son. 'r.i.10 comrictio::.1 for oscc,pinJ frm.1 lu-1ful custody is q_ucs;1od ro1d the sontence of one -:;:00,.i: inp:risonuont is set Savo as inf.. :Lce,tcd r-,1..)ov::e 1 tho is dis1:u nsod. 19 Doccnbor, 1989. Mr. Sa.ngawc, St2.to ,Attorney, for thG R0J)U'blic. lppcllant cb3ont.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.