19830325 TZHC Mbeya
- Citation
- 19830325 TZHC Mbeya
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 25 March 1983
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 25 March 1983
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellant was found in possession of the complainant's property shortly after it was stolen, and the doctrine of recent possession irresistibly and impeccably imputes the offences charged upon the appellant. The case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Sentence affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
Rashid Said
AppellantRepublic
Respondent Counsel: Mr Kapina, State Attorney03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant was guilty of housebreaking and stealing under the Penal Code
- 02
Whether the doctrine of recent possession applied
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant denied having anything like the stolen exhibits A, B, and C in his possession.
- Respondent
- The prosecution argued that the appellant was found in possession of the complainant's property shortly after it was stolen, and that the doctrine of recent possession applied.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law, as applied in criminal cases involving stolen property
Doctrine of recent possession
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellant was found in possession of the complainant's property shortly after it was stolen, and the doctrine of recent possession irresistibly and impeccably imputes the offences charged upon the appellant. The case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Sentence affirmed
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 25 March 1983
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· 25 March 1983
fl'T THE FIG-H GOTJTfPT OF AT I D3A (nc) cR•IimPAL MFILIL dO0 8 OF 1978 (From the deOisjon of the Distrct Court of lipanda at Npanda in Crictha1 Appeal No. 19 of 1978) RASI-ilD SAID = APPELLANT versus THEREP[LBLIC 000000oQoo00000 000000 0000 000004000000 RESPONDENT Char es: 1stcoung House — breakinb c/s 294(1) of the Penal Code Cap. 16 of the Laws, 2ndcount Stealing c/s 265 of the Penal Code Cap. 16 of the Laws. This i's a haplessly vexatiously trivial appeal, go to prove the case beyond doubt • 4 the evidence dbes The evidence does ever—whil!linyly establish that, on 19)4/1978 W1 and F142 left their house closed, and went for cultivaction. While they were there, they reliably learnt that an unwelcome visitor, a thief, had been caught in the houe of, and by 17d3 Haruna Sinba. Out of un—informed ouriousity, Pdl and 1d12 decided to Pandôn thoi work, and went to see who the thief wash It i e noFjere disputed thati that they went via thir home, only to discover, that P.Il'o shirt a trouser and handkerchief exhibits o,B and C, had been stolen from the house. And there is on record no controvorey, that FF1, B12 went to the house of Pi3 9 where the appellant had boon cauyht. It is their credible evidence th-:t, aroung the properties the appellant had in his possession icy FiTlts troicer, shirt and handkerchief exh. A,B and C. There is creeiPie ovidcnco that Wi identified the same to
be hisli The trial Ma;ietrcte buliyod this story o despite the appellant's protestations, that he never had caything like exhs. A,B and C I have examined the record aicroscuically and I reject the appella- nt's story. I believe as did the trial court, hiat, the appellant had the complainants prororty, hardly hears after they were stolen, and the application of the doctrine of recent cc nsessi..n does irresistably and impeccably impub the offences charyed upon the appellant hold the inevitable viewo that, the case was p:sved beyond reasonable doubb, against the appellant. This appeal has therof ore yot no merits at all, - - and it is dismissed as the senence are also lea1. Delivered this 25th dar of Narch, 19 8 3. / i. I. Katiti JIJIGE. or 4ppublic Presents Mr Kapina State Attoiey.
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.