19830824 TZHC Arusha

19830824 TZHC Arusha

There was no evidence that the appellant was in possession of the liquor, nor that a valid prohibitory order existed. Mere possession of local liquor does not satisfy the requirements of section 179 of the Penal Code, as there was no evidence it was likely to spread infection of a dangerous disease.

Citation
19830824 TZHC Arusha
Parties
Appellant: Samwel John and Another; Respondent: Republic
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 August 1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Possession of Prohibited Liquor, Burden of Proof, Interpretation of Penal Code, Evidence Requirements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Possession of Prohibited Liquor Burden of Proof Interpretation of Penal Code Evidence Requirements

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samwel John and Another

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was in possession of prohibited liquor under section 179 of the Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether there was a valid order prohibiting possession of Kangara in Moshi Township
  3. 3 Whether mere possession of local liquor constitutes an offence under section 179

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the appellant was in possession of the liquor, nor that a valid prohibitory order existed. Mere possession of local liquor does not satisfy the requirements of section 179 of the Penal Code, as there was no evidence it was likely to spread infection of a dangerous disease.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • Fine of 400 shillings, if paid, to be refunded to the appellant