19770811 TZHC Mwanza
- Citation
- 19770811 TZHC Mwanza
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 11 August 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 11 August 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The forfeiture order was set aside and the sentence reduced because the importation was not commercial, the appellant was a first offender, and the goods were his own property brought due to family necessity.
Court disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Forfeiture order set aside
- Cattle to be returned to appellant immediately
- Fine reduced to shs. 500
- Excess fine of shs. 2400 to be refunded to appellant
02
Material facts
Parties
Stephen Rwallasana
AppellantThe Republic
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Original Fine: TZS 2,900
- Reduced Fine: TZS 500
- Excess Fine to Be Refunded: TZS 2,400
- Number of Cattle Forfeited: 120
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the order of forfeiture of cattle was justified under s. 20(2) of the Import Ordinance
- 02
Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The forfeiture order was unwarranted and the sentence was excessive as the appellant was a first offender importing his own property due to family circumstances.
- Respondent
- The forfeiture was influenced by concerns about the impact of unauthorized importation on the national economy.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Import Ordinance Cap. 292, s. 20(2)
Forfeiture under s. 20(2) of the Import Ordinance should not be applied where importation is not commercial and is compelled by personal circumstances.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The forfeiture order was set aside and the sentence reduced because the importation was not commercial, the appellant was a first offender, and the goods were his own property brought due to family necessity.
Obiter and limits
- The question of economy did not arise in this case.
Court disposition
appeal allowed in part
- Forfeiture order set aside
- Cattle to be returned to appellant immediately
- Fine reduced to shs. 500
- Excess fine of shs. 2400 to be refunded to appellant
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 11 August 1977
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.
TZHC
Judgment· 11 August 1977
I:1 TI-'.l:: HIGH COURT OF TAN?,ANIA , .. AT r,·;\\i AN ZA AP. ELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH CuUr!T CFIHINAL AiJPl::~AL NO.· 202 OP 1977 (Original Criminal Case No. 102 of 1977 of the district Court of Ngara District at Ngara - Before P. z. Kagari, Esq., District Magistrate). STEPHEN Rl-JALLASANA 0000000000000000000•000000000000 APPELLANT versus THE REPUBLIC. 0000000000000000010000i0000000000000000 RESPONDENT CHARGE: Imoorting goods without Import Licence c/s 24 and 20- (1) and (2) of the Import Ordinance Cap. 292 of the Laws. JUDGEMENT: LUG!.I<INGIRA, J. : ' The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of importing ·goods without an imoort licence c/s 4 and 20 (1) and (2) of the imports control ordinance Cap~ 292. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to a fine of shs. 2, 900/= or 4 months' imprisonment in default. An order was also made for forfeiture of the goods - 120 head of cattle - under s. 20 (2) of the Ordinance. This is an appeal against the sentence and the order of forfeiture. I agree with both learned counsel for the appellant and the Republic that the order of forfeiture was uncalled for. It would appear that the trinl magistrate was influenced by the submission of the prosecutor that the unauthorised importation would affect the economy of the country. Now, the qu2stion of economy did not arise in this case. The appellant imnorted 120 cattle from Burundi into
Tanzania not by way of commerce. The cattle belonged to his brother who had just died in Burundi. The appellant was comp~lled to go and bring the cattle into Tanzania for he is himself a resident of Tanzania. In 'those circumstances I think the magistrate should not have involved the provisions of s. 20 ( 2) of the Ordinance. The same can be said about the sentence of a fine. I think it was on the high side. I say so when I consider that the appellant was a first offender and that his only sin was to bring his own property into the country. Considering the foregoing, I order the forfeiture set a~ide. The anpellant should be given his cattle immediately. I also reduce the sent~nce to one of shs. 500 only. The excess paid, that is shs. 2400/=, should be refunded t him. 'I'he .appeal is thus allowed to that extent. - 1 -~--v_.' )i ~ - K •. LUG1-.~A 1 JUDGE: HIGH COURT MW~NZ~ .11/8/1977 0
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.