basil pesambili mramba another vs republic 2015 tzhc 2106 2 october 2015

basil pesambili mramba another vs republic 2015 tzhc 2106 2 october 2015

The use of 'interests' instead of 'rights' in the charge sheet did not fatally prejudice the appellants or occasion a miscarriage of justice, as they were able to mount a full defence. The offences of abuse of office and occasioning loss, as charged, resulted in double jeopardy for the 2nd appellant on count 11, and his conviction thereon was quashed. The sentence of three years for abuse of office was unlawful and substituted with two years. The convictions on other counts were upheld as the evidence established the appellants' participation and disregard of procurement and tax exemption procedures, resulting in loss to the government.

Citation
basil pesambili mramba another vs republic 2015 tzhc 2106 2 october 2015
Parties
1st Appellant: Basil Pesambili Mramba; 2nd Appellant: Daniel Aggrey Ndira Yona; Respondent: Republic
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Consolidated Appeals
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed; convictions on most counts upheld, some convictions quashed; sentences varied.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Office, Occasioning Loss to a Specified Authority, Defective Charge Sheet, Double Jeopardy, Sentencing, Tax Exemption, Burden of Proof, Material Witnesses, Interpretation of Penal Statutes
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Public Procurement Administrative Law Abuse of Office Occasioning Loss to a Specified Authority Defective Charge Sheet Double Jeopardy Sentencing +4 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basil Pesambili Mramba

1st Appellant

Daniel Aggrey Ndira Yona

2nd Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Consolidated Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charge sheet was fatally defective for using 'interests' instead of 'rights' and for lack of particulars
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were convicted on a non-existent offence or defective charge
  3. 3 Whether double jeopardy was occasioned by charging both abuse of office and occasioning loss on same facts

Ratio Decidendi

The use of 'interests' instead of 'rights' in the charge sheet did not fatally prejudice the appellants or occasion a miscarriage of justice, as they were able to mount a full defence. The offences of abuse of office and occasioning loss, as charged, resulted in double jeopardy for the 2nd appellant on count 11, and his conviction thereon was quashed. The sentence of three years for abuse of office was unlawful and substituted with two years. The convictions on other counts were upheld as the evidence established the appellants' participation and disregard of procurement and tax exemption procedures, resulting in loss to the government.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed; convictions on most counts upheld, some convictions quashed; sentences varied.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence on count 11 quashed and set aside for both appellants; fine if paid to be refunded.
  • Convictions on other counts upheld.