Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

19700701 TZHC Dar es salaam

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and do not justify interference by the appellate court.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against sentence dismissed; original sentence stands.

02

Material facts

Parties

Thlocitan Singil

Appellant Counsel: learned counsel

The Republic

Respondent Counsel: learned State Attorney

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine Per Count: Shs 500

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and sought an unconditional discharge.
Respondent
The respondent argued that the appellant was aware of his immigration status and should have arranged his affairs lawfully; the sentence was not excessive.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Dar es Salaam Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1970, Maar Binch v. The Republic

    Sentences should not be interfered with unless manifestly excessive

  2. 02

    Immigration Act

    Duty of individuals to ensure lawful presence in Tanzania

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and do not justify interference by the appellate court.

Obiter and limits

  • The appellant left for India after paying the fine and did not have to resort to desperate measures as speculated by counsel.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

  • Appeal against sentence dismissed; original sentence stands.

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 1 July 1970

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· 1 July 1970

19700701 TZHC Dar es salaam

fT T11E 11I0 COURT OF TANZANIL AT DAt LB ZALAAJ AF?1LLAP1 JUflT8D1CT)ON CR1INAL APPRAL ND. 241 OF 1970 (Original Crirainai Case No. 406 of 1970 of the Disirict Oout of Dar on Zaiaam at Dar ec Salawn Before J, K. Bahama, Teaic1ent iagistrate) TM.LOCITAN SINOIL •,••..•..•••••.•..,..•....,.•...•... APPILLANT TL REPJBLIC •.......................e.............. i. J. — On his own plea the ael1ant was convicted of two offences under the Imniration Act and on each count he was entenoed to a fine of Shs,500/- or five months' imprisonment. 116 paid. the fine and is now appea1in against the sentence on the gxound tbt it is manifestly oces5ive. He is urging that the sentence of the trial court should be set aside and he should be given an unconditional dLsc33are. When the appellant became of ae the Immigration Department declined to give him a dependant's pass. Instead he got an Entry Pass class 'B' on the 15th of January 1970. He was asked to finalise his matters and. leave the Unite& Republic within two months. After the opiry of the two months he was still in Tanzania, He wasp therefore, served, with a Prohjbited. Immigration Notice requiring him to leave withIn seven. days. He did not leave within the prescribed time and so he was charged and accordingly convicted. The learned counsel for the appellant said. in this Court, as he / told the trial court, that on recelpt of the two

months' paso l the appellant, who carries the title of 'British Bubjot and Citlzen of the United, 1FinAdoyr and the Colonies' applied for a. voucher to enter rItain. A'9 the learned State Meorney representing the Republic no\\ argued the appellant becoming of age was not a sudden an& unexpected event. Ro know several months before he was eighteen that when he became 18 be would no 1oner be his depenan't and so be should have accordingly arranged his affairs • l lle was aware of the notorious fact that a certain class of U.K. citisons were experiencing some difficulty In entering their mother country, so he should. not have loft things until after the Immigration Department told him to leave within two mouths. It was his duty, as it is the duty of every one who lives in Tanzania, to make sure that his presence is lawful. The learned Oounøel for the appella.nt referred ins to a. Amelia !Ih CourtCaso in which a sentence of six months was set aside on appeal and a 'ine of Sbs.150/ - imposed In its plafle. The facts in that ease wore q,uite different from thoso in the present case and in a. case of this Court, Dar es Salaam Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1970, MAAR BINCH V. Tifl REPUBLIC, a søntenoe of hfl.5 0øi - or three months' imprisonment in default was allowed., to stand. While the sentences in the present case may not 'be modest, they are not manifestly etcesCive as to justify

interference by this Court. Accordingly I dismiss the appeal against sentenos. /1 note 4 -2- I note th after paying the fine the appellant vent to In.ia an.a that haDpiiy i did not have to throw himself irtO the eea as the 1ered eotinael .14 .d he rnight have to. Deiived 1 n Cow,t at Oar es Saiam this lot day of July, 1910. •L.M. Makame ACTiN J1TDoT oL6t 'iciw (11,kIWVH 'i'o) WVUTVS G avC •pQO09 [IUJWnS 1flMt1OJ a q qt qin. .ipxo Sjnuemb a saoo I pu \ wqdwoo jo pvno otjps tVu uoqç P 9`?POT ucaq sit tctth o . tjtit; si alftO3 stt. ODUOPTAO Olq9, 9 U'EP U OJ J9.$ . IV 'qy SaO UD ~ W4.S umwwç et. JO SUO TST4 oad tpt O OU R PJODOV w! ST eouaquo •otr.$qn9!poq4 Tx s todth . pui pasnoou at. jo qn o sti Tqpop equosez 012 et. eaojaq aouapT A e e. sxevcsuoo Jlloo sppj .jE4 at. B UTMO TT OJ £?p et EM eposrds uopon 'sçt ou sie& st peptzeuoo 9 AV 4 oq zctcI .ou saop psnoo su. p9WOUT trçuioo et fq - jo esoq. SU p!JT.uopT E xdozd ex oq • pp 91T Uv"Z 12OtsPiO 1IO3 JOtfQ .9US 04. ewoo o. WTq .toj nojjçp uesq GAUT4 PInOM q.T pm peoiuoo sessew.!M UOtqfloaEJOJcI 04 JO 8Ou9P TA9 O tT pa !~ d a oov IS5W atj, Opauutfo 5M pm Stme urx ot Ett.t zou siteot uopon8 atfl. Sq. awo wn utd .Oti 5Gp SVM at UOqX 000qo. ewos £nq oq. uo TqL one e oq. ezo pt nq, / TT )UI tWp3t1 aT J OJ U9 4. OU ptp 84 st aouojep spesnoQ eq •pesnoop sq p a~o ajae pua s.ists.inct e uodn pesTo.xx9 8q.suoo e1. 'xa4eito 'w.n't et, GUOP

9 AV tj q.TTTCW PUS poow £tn me wç uaeq 9AWt oq swsss p110.10 etfl. .XOJ q.uesazU 8em aqsuoo et.. atmzoj sJv9ddR q Pule Vq2tvO hprueAa si ej eq.suoo 9qZ ost' Pav pi.to.xo q peMottoj RaTaq 1 jjo apw PUP 5ur.x uoot smo.x.xus voTT4m eotrj n- .1O Pd9T Qfl. W.1914 UOd ,eflq.5O s.1elflo1q çuj pios Ptm ueo.s sq 91J ,.l0J EQUOW 91 WT1 AI .OTX O( flO P01 1P O 5riO 97 wozj OOTOA V ueti sI.d!e0e.1 oi pa s noop aq. o. pepun .1eUOtoT? OTTT, •t1a0 Eq ptoj Zud sq.sq ow jo jcsuoTqonv aqq. Eq peprtouoo uaeq Zsnf pt pu se.td svm zurl TaddL, et *9 T q v$ suoo aovroct OsTv aaP e.xs put O uTa uotou et o. pa ~~T Twps axr sa p tnq aq-ppo* pu sza!Te 6961 '.1eajuecIo -6 uo v3joTTxjD peweu eod t wpeeoo.zd $?11 UO!rfl-efl4E0 ? MOq jo si,1e. Se eupt uo noeso,icl atfl. Eq uet £..zo.s aqT, •JecIth? uo o. ew Stl{. a 4vq. o .tj uees s utiecid et. est.zns CUJOS S5STLO .t PTA'S eUQ avalo SJOA S st 1OflriOaS0.XCX .xoj asso atp •aoueues PUU uototuoo vns .'-'VTUP IR .JVOD S T t4 O. ST'eaddu 11ou a tf.u5wttsTuw1 isoLxoo jo sao.xqs rnOUaM eAte09.1 o. put uawuostqxdwt s.xaE 93.Ztfl. O. pOU0.LTO5 $514 pus apo jV`U9j OTp. JO 99a PW g9a suOoes oq Ecsa.txoo 'u s.aeo jo eous;;o us jo TUOkt mN JO janO3.rq$t UT pa.OTAU00 $M uS(eC[th eqj, •f - •epoç pua-j et, jo 99 puo 5/0 .X 5 1O 5 5.515 rrallor' 0 '. OIWd.li llqHL LMV'IlddV VAJVW INJW ex!sts ot.xs'j - 'bs 'Stoo'J4r :eto;e (tuoEus Tuo'Ruvil jo ino O JO 6961 JO °N OD t W!.IO1flZ!T. 1O) oL61 Jo $ON isedcIj tuTwt.z 'wss ie VINY7NV1L ffO WTHROO HDIII &IR .I ;1à

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.

Dar es Salaam Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1970, Maar Binch v. The Republic

Case cited

Immigration Act

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.