19891204 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The appellant, having exclusive control of the safe and failing to account for the missing money, was properly convicted of stealing by agent.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19891204 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Shabani Kazinyingi; Respondent: The United Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 4 December 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Stealing by Agent, Conviction, Sentencing, Appeal Dismissal
- 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
Shabani Kazinyingi
Appellant
The United Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for stealing by agent was proper
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant, having exclusive control of the safe and failing to account for the missing money, was properly convicted of stealing by agent.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction and sentence affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
\\tCn \A- GwY-\ .l) ~ .,,,,, W.~-~~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF Ti1NZi1NIA AT DAR ES SALAAM HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. ··99 OF 1989 Original Criminal Case ,~o. 30 of 1986 Gf the District Court of Bagamoyo District at Bagamoyo Before K.O. Mohamed;. Esq.·; District liiagistrate ll.D;wiU SHii.B.iiNI KAZINYINGI • , •• ·••••••• ;.APP.i::LL.ii.NT Versus THE UNITED REPUBLIC· •• ~ ••••••••• ~ ••• RESPONDENT JUDGMBNT IvlSUll'lI, J. Appellant is serving u sentence of five years imprisonment consequent to his being convicted of stealing b.Y ii.gent contrary section~ 273(b) and 265 of the Penal Cod~. ~e is now ~ppealing t• against both conviction arid sentence~ It is on record that at the material time appellant was the Secretary of primary cooperative society of Miorio, Baga1aoyo distri,t. On 29/1/86 he was entrusted with shs.60,000/= for purchase of produee from the co-,operati ve L'.lembers. Appellant maintained a safe in 'Which'· he kept all the ~oney entrusted to him. The locks t~ the safe could } be oper~ted by two keys both of which were being kept by the appellant,· Three months later, when appellant was checked, he was found with 1/ss of shs .-41, 340/5,0 for which he could not explain. The wemoranduw of appeal does not raise any point of substance. J(~1pellant is trying to raise doubt on how the alleged. lo,ss of coneJ' was discovered. however, neither at the trial nor before this Court does the. appellant challenge the basic allegatiori that he was responsible for the alleged loss. The 1,.1oney was supposed to be in the safe whose keys were exclusively being kept by him.· There is no suggestation that the safe had been tempered with. The prosecution case is quite overwhelming. Appellant's conviction ' was inevitable., Accordingly this appeal is dismissed at its ent~rety- Judge 4.12.89