19981027 TZHC Mbeya
- Citation
- 19981027 TZHC Mbeya
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 27 October 1998
- Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision From District Court Conviction
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 27 October 1998
- Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision From District Court Conviction
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The respondent, having been properly convicted of theft by agent, must refund the value of the stolen property to the victim to prevent unjust enrichment from the proceeds of crime.
Court disposition
Order for restitution granted
Orders
- The respondent Alex s/o Ngetwa is ordered to refund Tshs. 1,350,000/= to Petro s/o Mtisyo with immediate effect.
02
Material facts
Parties
Republic
Applicant Counsel: Mr. Mulokozi, State AttorneyAlex s/o Ngetwa
Respondent Counsel: Self-representedPetro s/o Mtisyo
VictimAmounts and remedies
- Value of Stolen Potatoes: TZS 1,350,000
- Number of Bags of Potatoes: 90
- Imprisonment Sentence (months): 18
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Revision From District Court Conviction
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conviction for theft by agent was sound
- 02
Whether an order for restitution should be made against the respondent
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The conviction, sentence, and proposed order of restitution of Tshs. 1,350,000/= should be upheld.
- Respondent
- He was not guilty of stealing by agent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's reasoning in the present ruling
A person convicted of theft by agent should not benefit from the proceeds of the crime and should be ordered to make restitution to the victim.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The respondent, having been properly convicted of theft by agent, must refund the value of the stolen property to the victim to prevent unjust enrichment from the proceeds of crime.
Court disposition
Order for restitution granted
- The respondent Alex s/o Ngetwa is ordered to refund Tshs. 1,350,000/= to Petro s/o Mtisyo with immediate effect.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 27 October 1998
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· 27 October 1998
IN THE HIGH COURr OF 'I:JJ\JZ!$IIli. J\.T iViBEYl1. CRIMINI..L TIBVISION NQ .•. 2/98 (From the decision of the District Court ,_ oLNbe;yQ. Criminal ', . ; , Case Noo 632/97)
VERSUS ,· ,, .f .. ALEX NGEI'WA. o·•·• --~-o o • • o • o o o o coo co••••.• o o o • oRESl·ONDEN'.r
RULING MWI1·0T0 . J ·----L-.;'..1. 'This court called for revision of the judg0me~t of the District Court. _, ... · of fibeya which c.'lnvicted the respondent i'i.lex s/o Ngetwa for stealing by, ageJilt ,90 bags (- bngs of round (Insh) potatoes valued at shs.1,356,000/;; ~nd sentenced him to 18 months iii j~iL\1~tb,out ordering for restitution of Tshs.1,35"t,ooo/= to the victim of the crime one Petro s/o Mtisyo who testified as I'W1 was justfied. · When called upon to show cause why the order ;,f compEin:;ation should not be made against to him the respondent answered that he was not guilty of stealing by agent at all. Before any order of refund .Jf shs.1,350,000/= the conviction must be looked ,: . ,. into if it was soundo The Jearned Mr. N;mgela (Sii.) supported conviction, sente.nce and the proposed order of restitution of the stolen property':;:; value in Tshs, 1,350,000/=. From the testimony of PW1 the accused and the victim of the· crime;-k~~w ®· other for many years both in DSM, and Mbeyas At the ti~~ of the theft the . accused w~ staying with victim of, the" crime as his guest. May trusted @ other and FW1 bought between 90 - 100 bags ~f :·;.-i::'ound potatoes from PW2 Enock s/o Kaporo out of which ~o"bag were entrust.,ed to tlte. ac.cused to go and sell them for him in DSM. Despite having ~old thaw. the. aieused never returnE;_d the prcM'·eeds thereof to i'W1 until over
6 months elapsed. on· being traeed in Kihesa· Iringa, the actused was found selliilg tomatoes and he. confessed to h~ve ~old the ., . bags of rou:ad . potatoe~ at a los~ the pro~eec'L!I pf whieh he failed to remit to the PW1 for even a single ftent until he was donvid.,' in court and the execuse that he was still : ~., looking the money to refund to PW1. - 2 - This was not a civil question of the respondent for merely looking :"'nr money for him at to refund to PW1 •.. It wciS a crimfaal question of the respondent having sold the potc..toes as ,agent df PW1 all the proceeds of which he stole them by . ,. . using them fraudulently agdnst the wishes of its ovmer a."ld permanently to deprive the owner thereof of the same proceeds., Tt1is is single theft by agent for which the respondent was, prope:rlj, ~onnectec~ nnd sentenced to 18 months :.i '.J .. 1 imprisonment. .,._ . At the same time ·, . tla~, . ;respondefrf . ~ . . ... 'cannot be left to benefit ru1d enjoy the illegal fruits of his crimeo He should have been ordered to reflL"ld the entire shs.1,350,000/== value of the 90"1::iags:of potatoes 2.t the D.£H mark~t to where he sold them for all the transport of the 90 bags potatoes was arranged and paid for by the victimof the crime" I hereby order the accused itlex s/o Ngetwa to refund shs.1 ,350,000/== to iiW1 Petro s/o. :Mtisyo with immediate effect. ,_ EeL.. Ko MWI?OPO
JUDGE ...... 27/10/1998 Date: 27/10/1998 Coram: Hon. B.L.Ko Mwipopo, Jo For ~epublic Mro Mulokozi learned State Lttorney., • For Respondent - Alex Ngetwa present in person. B/C Mrs. H. Kambadu. ·Court: Ruling delivered in the presence of the respondent. · E.L.K. M\-::~:eoro , JUDGE --- 27/10/1998 ·• I certify that this i:s a true and co}-'re()t copy·• of the original Judgement. •• ... , ; ")/ i •: - ,. I. ,, l -~. . . .,,,_.'~ "' . . t DIS'I'RICT REGISTRAR ,. -~., MBEYA' . .-.·
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.