20171005 TZHC Mbeya
The conviction was quashed because it was based solely on the uncorroborated confession of a co-accused, contrary to the law, and there was no sufficient evidence linking the appellant to the offences charged.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20171005 TZHC Mbeya
- Parties
- Appellant: Sdrej Allin Jija; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 5 October 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Conspiracy to Commit an Offence, Stealing by Servant, Confession of Co Accused, Standard of Proof, Evidence Law
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sdrej Allin Jija
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant was proper based solely on the confession of a co-accused
- 2 Whether the prosecution proved the charges of conspiracy to commit an offence and stealing by servant beyond reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was quashed because it was based solely on the uncorroborated confession of a co-accused, contrary to the law, and there was no sufficient evidence linking the appellant to the offences charged.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- conviction quashed
- sentences set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2017 (From the District Court Rungwe, Criminal Case No. 10412016) SDREJ A1lIN JiJ1A ................................................ APJ?EI1L.4NT THE REPUBLIC VERSUS .................................................... / RESPON ENI' JUDGMENT Date of last Order: 0411012017 Date of Judgment: 0511012017 A.F. NGWALA, J.: There is merit in this appeal. The particulars of the offences /with which the appellant and another Sam Mwambona Ambindwile/were charged were not proved. Those particulars given in the chargs for conspiracy to commit an offence c/s 384 of the Penal Code Cap. 16 R. E. 2002 and Stealing by servant c/s 271 and 265 of the Penal Code Cap. 16 R. E. 2002 were not proved by the prosecution side beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, this appeal has been supported by the Republic through Miss Hanna Rose Kasambala, the learned State Attofney who has readily conceded to the submission by Miss Mgayaj, the learned counsel who is representing the appellant. They ha'sL ,e all Page 1 of 3 submitted that the appellant 'was wrongly convicted on a confession of a co-accused which was uncorroborated contrary to the provisions of Section 33 (2) of the Tanzania Evidence Act. It/is a matter of law that conviction must not be based solely /Jn a confession of a co-accused. More so the mere admissicin or statement by a co-accused cannot be a basis for conviction This was held in the case of Ally Salehe Nsutu v. Republic [1980] T. L. R. I I that any inculpatorly statement made by one accused person cannot be the basis of conviction to the other accused person. Besides that there was no sufficient evidence both documentary and oral that linked the appellant with the offences charged. / For the said reason the conviction in the court below muj t be quashed. The sentences set aside. Accordingly the app/al is allowed, with an order that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless held for another lawful cause. A" A.F. Ngwala I Judge 05/10/2017 Page 2 of 3 ) Date:05/1O/2017 Coram: A. F. Ngwala, J. Appellant: Present For appellant: Miss Mgaya (Advocate) For the Republic: Miss Bernadetha Thomas (Advocate) B/C: Sarah Mungure Court: Judgment delivered in open court in the presence of the appellant and his Advocate and the learned Attorney. Court: Right of Appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania explained. A.F. Ngwala / Judge 05/10/2017 Page 3of3