19930526 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19930526 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 26 May 1993
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 26 May 1993
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The evidence supported the conviction, including the appellant's possession of the stolen animal and confession leading to the discovery of its remains. The confession was admissible under section 31 of the Evidence Act. The sentence imposed exceeded the magistrate's jurisdiction and was excessive.
Court disposition
conviction upheld, sentence reduced
Orders
- Appeal against conviction dismissed
- Sentence reduced from 15 years to 5 years imprisonment
02
Material facts
Parties
Saidi K. Koisari
AppellantRepublic
Respondent Counsel: Mr. WambeAmounts and remedies
- Original Sentence: 15
- Reduced Sentence: 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the burden of proof was improperly shifted
- 02
Whether the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- 03
Whether the confession was admissible and voluntary
- 04
Whether the sentence imposed was within jurisdiction and proportionate
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the trial magistrate shifted the burden of proof, the evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the confession was obtained by oppression and was false.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the evidence supported the conviction, the confession led to the discovery of the remains and was admissible, and the sentence was excessive but the conviction was proper.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 31 of the Evidence Act, 1967
Confession leading to discovery of evidence is admissible even if involuntary
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The evidence supported the conviction, including the appellant's possession of the stolen animal and confession leading to the discovery of its remains. The confession was admissible under section 31 of the Evidence Act. The sentence imposed exceeded the magistrate's jurisdiction and was excessive.
Obiter and limits
- It is possible the confession was involuntary, but its evidentiary value remains due to the discovery of the stolen animal's remains.
Court disposition
conviction upheld, sentence reduced
- Appeal against conviction dismissed
- Sentence reduced from 15 years to 5 years imprisonment
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 26 May 1993
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· 26 May 1993
'W\e___ b ~ ( L ~ ) .Ll· · ·:i~ ~·; ITICL1 C01t,-;.T OF T:.NZ.:JHL .'..!11 n'...:.: :CT3 S1:.1.,;J.H <11: nnT.:::J .:~:. i'l'• 1 no. J 19 / 1~93 o:::na:m_·.L Q'i;.IfIIK.:..L C...i>:C 1Wo 13t;/P£ OF TEE D:U)T.~.IC'T COU..:..T OF. D:..G:.lIOYO DJ:ST.~J:C-r .i..T CtLL:mzn .. JUDGILDlJT Tho c1,ppollant Sr,id:l. K·,:o.1::;:1l'. wc:s convicted. of 02.ttlo theft· oont:t:clrY to sections 265 c:.nd 268 of t~.10 I'onul Code., Ile hc,d doniod the truth of tho chr..rgo oncl il.1 his dof once ho cldmod thd the· whole ocso .wr.s a. frruu.o-u,p. Tho oVi.doncc cdditcoc''c :,:~ tJ.10 prosecution c.;;r,inst. tho appollMt which tho trial disti-iot oo·.rrt 0,t Chalh"'lzo aocoptod end c..etcd on 'Ii oa.n bo sumnm:.dzod ;..s follot·rst- on 9/9/89 tho c.ppollmi.t ·r.-rcs e guest of !'1il Sand,oro t.isamG,U who 1~csidcs ct Sclcni in the District of J3e.g--dll0yo• Tho appellant slipJ.)od a-re:,,;/ dttd.ng tho· niaht rnd ·in the morning :nr.c diacovorcd thG.t his hor.d of cc·.ttlo wr..s nlso m.i.ssi11z hom tho oow-ehcd. Togothor with his two noi£:.:,.1loi.u.~s r-:n .sot out ~ sor~oh of tho animcJ.. ]Si the.evening ·6f tile s,:-mo day i1-t2 ili D2.v.di and j?T14 Mrislio !lntct-ro. mot • < with the appellant at Mkoko. Tho u:ppcllent wc.s 1ttivi:.1g the animal~ Tb.oy tol.~d with him. end ho told t?..,.om th2:t; ho tf/;.S comiltg from Soloni a.nd. tho.t· ho hcd c2JJ10 to Mkoko to slr,~tor the enimal rlld
sell t~ mor..t •.. · Tho soexoh ttiokt !'1r.:t c.ncJ. his · compnnions , to Idkolco t-thel"a they met 11f2 and ?1'4 in tho ovoninc; o:f 10/9/89 e.nd. rcfo,tod to tho:· thou- mission. On suspicion l':-1'4 hcd the e.J11oll2.nt sc~cb.cd for Md tl-ot\Ght before him. On intorrogc.tio.n tho appoJ.lr..nt ,'.,Cillll. ttod to h2..vo stolc.'l tll.c miss~ £!J'limal1 plcc.d.ing thr.t it wr.a hum~ to CIT• Hq disclosed th~~t ho he.cl elc-.~to.-od. tho mimd nnd. ho prodt.'!.Ood the I-omr:,.ins; tiamcl.1 tho lloro rnd. tho hide.· Tllo eppolla.nt hr.s st:bmittcd thl~cc eu'bstl'.lltivo gi:'()Wld.8 in his, petition in rolv..tion to tho oonVietion. TJ..10 first ~ound is e.. ~Ijlpl~int thc.t tho trial mr~trctc shifted t;.lO 'btu-dcn of proof• 1hc aoeond €,TOUJlO. is ·tlu-;t tho OV'.i.dcnco against b.i.m d:l.d hot 0dr.-,blish his eiult bo~nd rosoncblc doubt and th;_,,t he should" h2:vo boci1 e-'-· -- '-1-,o ~ i t «f the doubt· th::.t obtninod. .,.;,. ...-. · ' . I. ,, Tho thu-d ground is tht.',t the mi-'0istrdo should not ht-Ye relied: upon tho oon:f'cssion e2 it W2.S orlrectod by oppression o.nd as it wes feJ.so. I must dismiss all these grounds,. I h2.vc c22cfully rcv.d tho trieJ. judgment e.na. I hr:vc fdlccl to sec czi.:y shifting of tho "bu:i:'don of proof. The oVidcnco fully Stt.i_:>po~tcd tho conviction.· Tb.ore w2S tho fcot. thct the appcllc.nt l~ft tl.-:.:i home of I·1IT f'Lti:'tivcly
1:1..nd tb.c.t his dcp.:-.."t'turo ooinoidod 1•rith the disr,?pcc:~rc-,nce of the wimale Thc:ro tras the fact thr..t ho •WC.S in possession of the animcl. lr.tcr 0;1 t::..c scrao dr.:, at l\t{oko. was his confession ::md his l):roduction <?f the romc.5.l1S of the an~. is quite possible thr,t ho w..d.o tho confession involuntarily. But tho confossion tcd to the disoo·vol'"IJ of tho rom:rins of tho stolen c.nimaJ. al'ld oould thus "be adduced lJJ t:ic prosecution al'ld. i~olicd on ~ tho oow.t, by virturo of section 31 of tho :Jv:'idcnco .Lot 1 1967 •. "In the eireumst~ccs t tho nppoal e.gainst the conviction fdls 2.nd is d~.smissod. Tho sentence awe:;:-dco. 1>-.:r the trial magistrate was imprisonmont for 15 yet.rs. hs I told c?.nothcr r.icgistre,to of the 82,illQ oo'U.:i:'tt it is beyond tho jurisdiction of c. d.ist~ict mr.gistre.to to l)c'..SS such c.. scntonoo1 ru1d wh~.t is mo:rc o.nd ovidc11.®:· tho scntonco is excessive. I will, ond do,· rcduool it to a term of fivo yor~~ Delivered ,4)pollsnt present Mr ¥'.ambc. for tho Z.cpublic D. l' • M.'.:: IG..:?JO J'UDG]l •"
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.