19780209 TZHC Mwanza

19780209 TZHC Mwanza

The convictions on counts one (conspiracy to defraud) and two (obtaining money by false pretences) were quashed because the particulars of the charge did not disclose an offence and the evidence, including the handwriting expert report, was inadmissible and insufficient. The conviction of the third accused on count three (attempt to obtain money by false pretences) was upheld as there was credible evidence that he attempted to obtain money by representing himself as the beneficiary of a cheque for goods never supplied.

Citation
19780209 TZHC Mwanza
Parties
Appellant: Samuel Kiseru; Appellant: Marcel Jo Niungo; Respondent: The Republic
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
9 February 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Obtaining Money by False Pretences, Attempt to Obtain Money by False Pretences, Evidence Admissibility, Criminal Procedure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Defraud Obtaining Money by False Pretences Attempt to Obtain Money by False Pretences Evidence Admissibility Criminal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Kiseru

Appellant

Marcel Jo Niungo

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for conspiracy to defraud, obtaining money by false pretences, and attempt to obtain money by false pretences were supported by admissible evidence and proper legal reasoning
  2. 2 Whether the documentary evidence (handwriting expert report) was properly admitted
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of the charge disclosed an offence under the Penal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions on counts one (conspiracy to defraud) and two (obtaining money by false pretences) were quashed because the particulars of the charge did not disclose an offence and the evidence, including the handwriting expert report, was inadmissible and insufficient. The conviction of the third accused on count three (attempt to obtain money by false pretences) was upheld as there was credible evidence that he attempted to obtain money by representing himself as the beneficiary of a cheque for goods never supplied.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Convictions and sentences of both appellants on counts one and two quashed and set aside
  • Conviction and sentence of second accused on count three quashed and set aside; he is to be released unless otherwise lawfully held