republic vs ramadhan muungano 2022 tzhc 270 28 february 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE

DISTRICT REGISTRY OF KIGOMA

AT KIGOMA MISC. CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION NO. 01 OF 2021 (Original criminal Case No. 252 of 2021 of the District Court of Kibondo) THE REPUBLIC........................................................................... APPLICANT

VERSUS RAMADHAN MUUNGANO...................................................... RESPONDENT

RULING 25 & 28/02/2022 F. K. MANYANDA, J. This matter has been brought to me for confirmation of the sentence of seven years imprisonment given by the District Court of Kibondo in Criminal Case No. 252/2021 to the Respondent following a conviction of the offence of house breaking contrary to Section 294(l)(a) and (b) of the Penal Code, [Cap. 16 R. E. 2019]. After a full trial, the court was satisfied with the prosecution evidence that it proved the charged offence beyond all the reasonable doubts, Page 1 of 4 consequently, as explained above, convicted and sentenced him to a custodial sentence of 7 years. The sentence provided for the offence the Respondent was convicted with is under Section 294(l)(a) and (b) of the Penal Code, which provides as follows: - "294(1) Any person who- a) breaks and enters any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling with intent to commit an offence therein; or b) having entered any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling with intent to commit an offence therein or having committed an offence in the building, tent or vessel, breaks out of it, is guilty of housebreaking and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years." The law above cited provides for the maximum punishment of fourteen (14) years imprisonment for the person found guilty of an offence of house breaking, but in the circumstances of this case, the respondent after

having been found guilty, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer a custodial sentence of seven (7) years imprisonment. Why now did this case come for confirmation? The trial magistrate of his rank, been below the rank of a senior resident magistrate, save for Page 2 of 4 sentences with minimum sentences, has limited sentencing power to twelve (12) months only. He may sentence above that limit if the law permits, but subject to confirmation by this Court as per section 170(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap. 20 R. E. 2019] which reads as follows: 170(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) (a) a sentence of imprisonment; (i) for a scheduled offence (as defined in subsection (5)), which exceeds the minimum term of imprisonment prescribed in respect of it by the Minimum Sentences Act; (ii) for any other offence, which exceeds twelve months; (b) NA shall not be carried into effect, executed or levied until the record of the case, or a certified copy of it, has been transmitted to the High Court and the sentence or order has been confirmed by a Judge: Provided that, this section shall not apply in respect of any sentence passed by a Senior Resident Magistrate of any grade or rank. " Having gone through the sentence and the provisions of the law relevant to this matter as provided above, and the fact that the trial magistrate not Page 3 of 4 being a Senior

Resident Magistrate, therefore, the trial magistrate passed the sentence of seven (7) years subject to confirmation of a Judge of the High Court. Consequently, the sentence of the trial court been given under the correct provisions of the law, In the exercise of the powers vested in me under section 170(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, I do hereby CONFIRM the sentence of seven (7) years imprisonment given to the Respondent. It is so ordered. F. K. MANYANDA Judge 28/02/2022 Page 4 of 4