Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

19910712 TZHC Tabora 1

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The conviction against the 1st appellant (Sparrow Baje) was not supported by evidence, as he acted on the authority of the 2nd appellant's signature and had no independent knowledge of the fraud. The 2nd appellant (Ayub Sabibi) was proven to have signed false payment vouchers and payrolls, and thus was guilty of obtaining goods by false pretences under section 302 of the Penal Code, not theft by servant.

Court disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of 1st appellant, dismissed in respect of 2nd appellant. Conviction of 2nd appellant substituted to obtaining goods by false pretences under section 302 of the Penal Code.

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of 5 years imprisonment against 1st appellant quashed and set aside; 1st appellant to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
  • 2nd appellant convicted of obtaining goods by false pretences under section 302 of the Penal Code.

02

Material facts

Parties

Sparrow Baje

Appellant

Ayub Sabibi

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Bilalo

Amounts and remedies

  • Total Sum Paid to Labourers: TZS 102,471.75
  • Payment Voucher 24/11: TZS 26,606.3
  • Payment Voucher 4/10: TZS 28,539.45
  • Payment Voucher 47/10: TZS 27,318.5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellants challenged both conviction and sentence, denying involvement in the alleged offences and disputing the evidence linking them to the crime.
Respondent
The learned State Attorney unreservedly supported the convictions of both appellants, relying on the evidence presented in the lower court.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    General criminal law principle

    Conviction must be based on credible evidence proving the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. 02

    Penal Code, sections 265, 270, 271, 302

    Proper legal classification of offences is required; public servants should be charged under appropriate sections for offences committed in public service.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The conviction against the 1st appellant (Sparrow Baje) was not supported by evidence, as he acted on the authority of the 2nd appellant's signature and had no independent knowledge of the fraud. The 2nd appellant (Ayub Sabibi) was proven to have signed false payment vouchers and payrolls, and thus was guilty of obtaining goods by false pretences under section 302 of the Penal Code, not theft by servant.

Obiter and limits

  • Appellants were wrongly charged under sections 271 and 265; the proper charge should have been under section 302 for obtaining goods by false pretences.
  • If the bank had known of the cheques' invalidity, payment would have been stopped, indicating the offence was not theft but obtaining goods by false pretences.

Court disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of 1st appellant, dismissed in respect of 2nd appellant. Conviction of 2nd appellant substituted to obtaining goods by false pretences under section 302 of the Penal Code.

  • Conviction and sentence of 5 years imprisonment against 1st appellant quashed and set aside; 1st appellant to be released forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
  • 2nd appellant convicted of obtaining goods by false pretences under section 302 of the Penal Code.

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 12 July 1991

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.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 12 July 1991

19910712 TZHC Tabora 1

. -~-- AT TA:OOR.4 APP1filiI,AT-W. Jl1RISDTCTJ0l'r (Tgbora RPgistry) (HG) CRP"Ti'°rAL AP"fl"'AL 1'JO. 177 cf 217 OF 1989 0 RJ GJ"TIT .AL CRTI"I;T .AL CAS~ Tli0. 17 2 OF 1988 OF TH'!! DISTRJCT COURT OF KAS'CLU DISTRICT

AT KASULU - ~.... ~ • ,•'M Be~ore; L. M.ASOLJ.A 111sq., R?S;fJ:?~-rT/S~TJOR/DI SlTUCT MAGI STRAT15. -SJ? .ARROW BAJ~ ••• ~ , •••• , • • • • • • • • • . • • • APP"fil.rL.ANT ~N~ 4NOTH~11 (Original Prosecu.tor) T1f1l! R?PU BLIC • ,. • •: ,.. , ~: • •' , • • • • • • • • • • • • • .','' •, I •·'. • RESPOND1:i'NT '· (Original ProsPcu.tor ..,. ; '•:1,I J u 'n·-· p :,Y,. 'D't }?, 'f'T .?; ,c I '1',;_~, •,~--.:~,fM•e.; ThP.se appea,ls 1'To. 177 /89 '3na 217 /89 have been c~~;~iia''ai;a· 'so' that thPy arP. consi.dr->rP.a ana aetP.rrnjnea collio.ctively si11.CP they spring fro'!!' the S'.:t11JP Cri rn:i nal CasP 11ro ~ 172/88 aeci a ea by the Dtstrict Gou.rt, KasL1lu. The 1st AppelJant (1st AccusP.a) one Sparrow Baje ana the 2nc Appellant ( 2nd ~\ccu.sP.d), one . .. Ayu b Sabi.bi: . were . jo.intly . ~·~har,ged · . ... - ' . . ' . with the Offence of stA31:i.ng by servant c/s _271 and 265 of the Penal Cod'e. They vver~ conviotn.d:arid 0 8Ch s~htfmc""a ·to :a pr:i son· te.rm of 5 years i~p-rlsonri1~nt~ _Aggri.ev.Pd ~:y th~ °CP,ciBion pf th~ Dis,:trict Court·, -~hey have ap_pealed to thi.s Gou.rt :against _bo:t.h: .;i,,.,., ..,-:-. :. ·.... -... . . ·. • ' .\ ,· .• convicti.ons and sentP.nces • .Acco~ding to the evidpnce j thP. 2nd Appellant-. ( 2;;a· Accu~;a) one Ayub Sabi bi was an ernplOYP.P of the Kasulu District Gour.oil with the ti. tle of Building Officer. He was cone t:lrnP.d with

thf" supervision of a varj_P.ty of work undAr the D:l.str:ict ~gineerii onP. Damian ~yura. '(P~W. l) ana one : 11 ':U!lbohP.la Filbio.rt (P.W. 2). Tn his capa<dty as the Builcinf Officer, the 2nr ~ppr.-11::mt, on~ Ayub Sabi.bi, w9s· 1mp0w~red to lof'}k. for la.bourArs,. engq,p.:r.>. thPm ~na thi=in prr.>pare n monthly . ' . . / ' > ' . ' . ' p3,yroll showinp thr.> list of 1-'3.00U!'f>rS,:Who vvouJ.d W0r.l{ in- 6rl0 2/. , - 2 - particular month. ~he payroll would b~ signqd by a fcrernan a.,pointPd by thP 2nd Appellaht htmself to supervise any su¢h piece. of work. The pay~ro11 would prO(H!duralJy be sjg:nr--a by th!'! foreman '!.n.a the 2nd Appellant.· Thrs cul,Y si gt') P0 payr6li would thm1. bP r~IDJ. tte a to _thP C!ish off:i c9 for purpose bf getting pr0parPd a sin.gle paymPnt v ouc hr->r b~ari ng the nP,C e ssqry particulars and thr-m sign r>d by th~ 2nd AppPllant. ·. Such s1 gned paymr-mt vouoher ac coropanyj ng thG duly signed pay-roll_ would then <t:uJ.roinate in the issu~ ·of a oheque which would be cashed ana the proCGt:>ds paid to th8 labourers. Between the per:i.od of 13/10/86 and. 10/11/88 a total sum of Shs.102,471/75 was paid. to labourers. On checking, it was di scovP.rr:d that the payment voucher No. 23/11; payment voucher 'f\To. 24/11 for Shs.26,606/30; pg,yment vollcher 1'1o. 4,/10 for Shs.28,539/45; payment voucher r--ro. 47/10 for Shs.27,318/50 with th0

r"'leV9_nt pay-rolJ.s ana attaoh,:,d to thnr!i sign8d by the· 2nd Appella.nt w0.r9 falsA in that no work of. any kjnd had eVPr b"GI'.l. don0. and t'13.t thP mon~y was thPr0.fore stol(m. Thr- 2nd App~ll!3.nt totqlly a~nj.r..d sj gning any of thn Pxhibit8o PaymAnt Vou.chPrs '3.na payrolls. ThP 1st Appellant ,~st .Accuspd), one Sparrow Baje, -ch.~n thP, C!3.shjPr adrrjttC>a pr(.)pg,rjng thP, ~xl-)ib:i tP.d Pay:rnl'.:!-nt Vouchers o:ri th~ strP.11gth or -bhra aut12ori ty of thn 2nd Appel 1 ;mt 1 s sjgnature. The 1st Appellant admi tt"'a paying the JT1oney to th~ labour0r whorr: only thP. 2nd.Appellant knew and that hA did so, in th~ presencP. of th"? 2nd App eli,smt. .. The lr.;arned State Attorney, Itrr •.Bilalo unresRrvedly supported convictions of both Appellants. Having oare-fully gonP, through the evidence as adduc~d bP,fore the• Lower Court,· I am una.bl P. to agree with the 1 earned StatP Attorney, that th~ conviction against thP 1st ·Appellant (1st Accus0a), onP Sparrow Baje, was well-foun.d.ed. The 1st Appellant was obliged to p n=n~are thn payment vo uch9rs on b0.ing s1.tisfj_1;d that tht:? 2nd Appellant, whose signature hP. kn~w, · had duly signt=>d on thP pay-roll~ Th~ signatories of the oheques sjgn~a on thA cheques on· being satisfi Pd that the 2na App0llant had si gnPd on all thA pay-roll 9 3 n& payn,r-nt vouch~rs. . . . . . . . 3/,, ., ;,. 3 Th,e 1st Appell mt paid

th~ ·:monf'!y to ~th0 .labo-u.rers as -confim.-Pd by th"' 2nd Appellmt ,. who undou b-t.-,dly knew, the labourers, ·hr-: h3.d himsGlf 0.nggged G As to the 2nd AppelL1nt 1 ( 2nd Accl:l-sP-d), ther~ was overwhr-lming eVidrnc0 to prov0. thP fact that it W:3.S th~ 2nd Appellant 9 hi.:m iloner ' •·4-, ( who h.'3,d signrd thr- -1:;r.ndr,rc::d PXhibi tso :rhn evid0nce of Oll"' Tumian Fyura ( P • 'ff,.., 1), . /" on0 h:im ' ' - oonela :F'ilbr:r-c (P~Wo 2) on0. Iladqla. t'as:1nj.:1 • I (P.W. 8) a,n . ~ othr.-rs co:a.:f:1.rmr-d -L.h.0 1st Api::i<::~1r-mt' s tr-stirnony thqt thP r>Xh:i.bi t0d v:i.ym,..,nt VO L~.:;hP:r'S :mfl P'.::!YTOlJ."s h:iq br.n1"1 sign0c by th" 2nr Aponll~mto ·rhPr0 is th,·· r-~7j_r·,-nc:.r> of O:r7P W;i.lljgm Rubw9 (PoW. 12) q C.!ishinr 1.n th,, lT~1vin.:nsl F:-iH,<.. :~f C:rri:r,,n;n; K~sulu Br.9nch. p.'7. 12 ! f!,'J.VI"> 0-w-i {ir,r.cn br,forro ti-1,c, Lc• ;;.-·,:r- Co L~rt ,.na tolcl tti.r-- Court th~t h_,.-, hq_d 1 C~s~nd th~ ChPqUns ~x~jtit P. 5, ~- 6 ~na P. 7 qpd h~d giV~P thn proc9Jos to th"' 2-rn 1-~ppeJ.'i 1nt w•·,o :n1.d si ,gi;,0n i:n his prr->snnc(.). Ori tryc. t'or,=,,o:orin ,grou:11 rlss T '.,','OUL.d. :'!1.1.bw th,:, "JPf'l?.'.11 jr, rnsp 0 ct of thn 1st Ap_pr.>:1_ 13.nt, on n Spa:crow B1. jG '1nd dj smi ss th1.t of th(.'\ 2:n a Appellqnt, onn Ayub Sibjti. I E0for" J conclud0 1 J wo:11d oosnrv,., th:1t thr- AppG17.:mts h::i..d br..nr1 I wrongly

ch,1rgr-cl unc'er- th.r. prov is, one of ·s,,,ctjon .271 _,ma ~65 of t!1r, Penal Cod",. Th'"? Appell :i;:1 ts h:iving bnr:n 1rmployr f:'9 of thr. Distr:i. ct Counnil, K3..sulu w}1jch is•~- :3pncifird Au-~horityj th0:y sh0 ,,(;Ea . h appropriq_tcly h:i.->e: 'occm chg_rgca with th0 Offr,ncc of stoi.ing by :1 I p Arson rJLploy rd in thr publ:1.c ~ s0rvic ~ b/s 265 me 270 of th0. Prn 11 Ooae. _TTowr:ivrr, J 1Jil not ·1.t 111. surr, if th..-, provisions of srec:t:ion 270 ,CJnc! 265 of th,... F"n 1.l Co fJ r is thr. c9rr. ct on~. 0 Th,..-r~ w·1s :no atrr.ct th..-,ft of thr Cour,dl's rnonr.y. Jt w11s ar1wn fro.m t1.1,.., ll~1t-;rn9l J3':l.nk of. Corr'rnr.i re E'! ll 1{ 1.sul u r.n prns0nt'1tirn of oh r..qu.0s whj ch purportnd to b"' -Vqli<L Tf thn J3i.ux Kq,sulll h-9d :knoimi. of th~ ungi:m.uinr--nr.,ss of I• ,. th0 prr,e,-,ntr.-a Gl-1,.,quns_. it wou1a hqvo rnf~rr0a thP :mr.:ittnr to th,-,, Cou.t'c:il; counsr.iq_uP11.tly, p9..yJTJr:11t stopor., 1,a. · Tt i.s my siPCP.rP vjow, t1'1nrrrforr.,, th1.t th0 off,.,-,:ncn co.,...,...,:ittnd' w·::ts th,1t of obt·:d:nF-; goocls by frus" prAt,.,ns0s. 11 t".lorr--forP9 coJ"lvic~ th0 2nd Appell';_nt of th0 offrmcn of obt7.ine g:::•ods by fqlsn pr0 trn'..~'"'S c/s 302 of th.n. Pen?.1 Cod8. As T s1:ia bP-fore, J dj_s~:iss th('> 1,ppr-ql. in r~spec-t of th 0 2nd Appell mt ( 2na Accus0a), o n ~ - - ~ ·, ( ...... . 4/. " _,- ) \ ·, I, ' / t / - 4 - As to t110. 1st Appel,a11t. (1st Accus.--d) one Spg_rtow Baje, J quash conviction 1.g.:-drist h:i:m gnf! snt asidr:i t.h/:l s(>nt~ncn of 5 y~grs :i mprl sontnent. The .1st App811 'lnt b"' r0l~-:ts"'a forth.w::i th uriloss o-thPrw:i S(> lawf ull.Y hAld j n Custody.· A. G. GM_.KOROSSO, JUDG~ • . \.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Penal Code sections 265

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code section 270

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code section 271

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code section 302

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.