Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

19890823 TZHC Mwanza

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appellant, a public officer, was proved beyond reasonable doubt to have solicited and received a bribe, evidenced by marked notes and fluorescent powder, justifying conviction and separate sentences for each count.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Omnibus sentence set aside
  • Separate sentences imposed: five years imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently

02

Material facts

Parties

William Kisumu

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Bribe Solicited: KES 12,000
  • Bribe Received: KES 7,300
  • Marked Notes Used in Sting: KES 2,000
  • Sentence Per Count: years 5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant denied soliciting or accepting a bribe and claimed he acted in response to complaints about the complainant's threats to clients.
Respondent
The prosecution argued the appellant, as a public officer, solicited and received a bribe from the complainant, supported by evidence including marked notes and fluorescent powder detected on his hands.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Prevention of Corruption Act

    A public officer who solicits or receives a bribe commits an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

  2. 02

    General criminal law principle

    Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction in criminal cases.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appellant, a public officer, was proved beyond reasonable doubt to have solicited and received a bribe, evidenced by marked notes and fluorescent powder, justifying conviction and separate sentences for each count.

Obiter and limits

  • The trial magistrate erred by imposing an omnibus sentence instead of separate sentences for each count.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

  • Omnibus sentence set aside
  • Separate sentences imposed: five years imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 23 August 1989

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· 23 August 1989

19890823 TZHC Mwanza

.... . ... --- ......_. ___ -~-- - -.-,.,, I I::: ,;::rr:rr: me:::. COU:Jr or· T.t:::.~ZJ.J-::=..".. ---- LT r.;:-!JJilZA APFELLAT~ JlJ:lISDIC1I0N / :C:IGH COURT CU:::J-.:r·,.-:::., ':;:,:., ~..l.J J{Co 85 c,:;_p 1989 ORIGilT.'...L CJiiJ.:J:T.'..L IJ.'.S:J :1;.~so U Oli' 1 )UPi O? Tl'IE DISTRICT COL1Y.::' OF K.-;.GU DILT:lI011 ·.:':T ~liL.GU WILLIAM KISU:U.lt • o .. ., ~ o ., 0 0 0 O C C, 0 Cl O 0 0 0 Cl 0 .APPELIJJWJ.1 Versusg TEE BEPUBLIC ·.; 0 0 e O O • 0 ., 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 ., • • •. ., ., • 1.:J3POlill:C:NT JUDGEI(ENT MUNYEPJ~ t J e : The appell2.nt 1-;2.s chr.cr£:,od 1r;ith 2 counts of co:;:,:;.:Upt trans.::ctiqn by agento It wB.S ngreed he was e Ward Secretary, ShiRhahi, l¾'l-gu District, as such a Public Officer for tho pU.L"i)OSe of the Pr";)vention of Cor'?.;;.:i:)tfon .!J.ct. The story started like this: $]hero is· a person celled K2pie:,i Lycl~cha (PW .1; who··-is referred therein as the comploin:::nt'? rf.o li--:cs in I~ah2hn Villcce and prnctised. as a· loc2,l med._iccncman .. L womo.n · ~~l10cl JohGbi c,pproc,cr.od _him for trectment. Ee trented her cmd E.cco:;:dinc -!;o hin hie pntient cot welh He· charged. her initi21 fee of shs 1,000/= c.".nd. then to ::;ic~r him n cowo Sometir.1e· lnter a row erupted o'1i-or the pc;yrncnto The p2.tients cor,1pleinoC:. to the· nppellant in his cnpccity ns. a Wnrd Socretr.:Py. The c,ppcll2.nt ,r.rotc c ~otter to

tho _complaincnt· f!!U.!ilnoninf, him to his officco It appc~::..:s- thc:rc wns o dolr.y .in · complc.inc:::nt ts reporting to th9 cy~;ellc.nt Fho j_rnt1··uct0cl Lis ragnnbo to nri·est . . ~ hin ( co!il].)lninr:nt) o T:.1is u2,s d.onc .on 13/6/88 2,,nd. tho cm.111lc.innnt wr.s pn.rndcd before him. !:.ft or s oTiio . int e:rrou.t i or...s tho n1)pc l hmt o::clm:ca.. the prisoner (PWoI) to be locked '!J-P• IIo rcnc.incd in lock up till 12 midnicht when ono Josia (Ftv .. 9) opon0d tho door nnd delivered n 1:iesoogc to the co11p1cintnt. Tio .said tho appellant wnnted shso 60, 000/= so thc.t he cov].d rolocso c:ncl e:x:onorde him.. The cor.1j_)lnincnt .snid l~e <1,id not hnvo thc.t much., In the end tho . nppellm1t ngreod to receive 12,000/~. By then tho conplni11£1.nt hc.d shso 1,300/= in pocket, tho ·oppellc.nt ook thorao .Uso tho cor.iplninnnt 1 s .fcmHy u.vo the nppcllnnt shs. · 6,000/=, this racdo c:\ total of shs (6000+1300) 79 300/=. IIo wc.s told ho wns st':i,.11 inddbtod to tho nppol;J.nnt shs. (12,090 ·- 7,300) 4, 7000 Ro w<1s roloc.sed fror.1 custody ~~d~old to bring tho bnlcnco of shs 4 9 700/= ns soon ns possible •. Ile 1-10nt and brought shso 1,000/=, .this loft n bcl,-:!ncc of shso 3, 700/=. · Ile n.skod to be given tin0 to soL his c,nirx.J.so ITo sold hin c;or.-.ts nnd i:2.isecl.shs 3,700/=o 0. . . Whan ho :wns nbout to rot·urn to tl'.e O:ppoll,.nt to nd-co c. find

pr.xr,-.t sane, people· . :c.dvised hiL1 to ropo~c•t to _th0 :.nt-Cor.:.'Uption SqU£,cl, ho did soo Tho squad.non took shs. 2,000/= out of 3, 700/= mid s~nt' thor:: to tl:c po;t.ico 9 tho noney wns in note~f~ . . . At the. RCO O_ffi~ Sgt i-Tilli,an (P1.Y3) npplicd fluorescent pm·irlor on th? _notes· end_ ·returned then to tb.o squ<'.clr:.cno They sot ou:t in cooprn-iy 1::-ith tho cor.:rplninc.nt t:o th0 npp?llnnt nnd 2rr1.vod there d 5.,00 pt: 011 21/6/08,. 1, 2 They ec.ve tho 2,000/= to ~ho con:pl.:::inr.nt who h2.d to 1:..::.nd over tho smo / to tho oppcllnnt. They found hir.1 in tho office end tho cor.,plr-:incnt e1:-tcrod, tho 13qundnon took coversocowhero o..round tho office, Ile told tho appcllnnt ho hcd 1roU[_ht shso 2, 000/=,. the cppollcnt protested. why ho wns 1ctc, tho cot1plo.incnt replied ho wcs looking for tho noncy. Tho:n the cppolJ.cnt told hi□ to give hi□ thnt 2,000/=. Tho conplniru:.nt·hr,nded hin the notes to tho craount of shs. 2,000/= nnd wclkcd out, tho cppollnnt put the· oonoy in tho ritl1t side drcwor of h:i.a tc.blo. On scirl£ tl:o signcl the. sqund:Llen :..--ushod into tho office nnd seized the _r.::oncy froo. tho' d.rnw0r. The nonoy wcs ~cmnted by witnesses o.nd. nnountod to shs 2,0oOj= in 100/= notes and tho so:i'.'io.l nUL1bors wore tho S!mo e:s those in tho .rocorcls ·of tltc sqU£.dnon. The _npr,ellnnt wr.s m::rostcd end tr:kon to tho Police d2.rk

rooo. Sgi; 1villiam (PT11.3) applied his uitrn violet licht_ nnd dotectoci the powder on tho uppcllcnt is h8.nds._ Ila wcs nccordii-1gly chnrcod. In 1::.is defence he stctod ho hcd received conplcint,s fron those tho coo-plcinnnt h2d t:rec.tod~ Their complaints wore thot _he wc.s thrccteninc .to kill tlfon if they fr:~led to pay !3-in his professionc.1 fees. 110 ordered l1is r,::-rcst nnd SUJ..lf.loned his oomplciru::nts. The cor..>plcinnnt c.polo[ised :for thror,toni11e tho· lives of his -Clients, ho wcs crcnted bnil till 18/6/88 uhon the netter would be finGlised. no did ~ot turn up, only thc:t on 21/6/80 he (o.p:pollr,nt) t-ms nrrostod on ihis bribe offnir., lle denied :to hcvo s-licitod nor nccopted r:oncy frotl tho c,OOJ>lainnnt. Tl:c locrnod trir..l Dr!Cistrt.tc disnissod his story, convicted as chc:.:rged and sentenced h:4J to o.n cr:mibus sentence of five (5) yeo.:rs ibprisonnent, Ho broucht this nppoa.i. Ile still insists ho did ,1ot solic1t nor cccept bribe o.s nlleged. · It was undisputed tho nppollcnt 1:ro.s n :vc.rd Soc:rotcry tl.nd n Public Officer ·tor the purpose of tho lnw. It wc.s nlso ostcblishod the c,:ppell~nt hod the coraplcin.-:nt before J:iD in his (nppellr:nt) ccpr:.city ns ~ public officer, . · ho·. ho.d powers to decide uhothcr to trk0 lord nctio11 cf,Binst the cot1p_lcinnnt or exonircte hin, this wc.s in l'olntion to -_the nffr,irs of his- prinoipcl,

tho · Govornr.iont. Thero wc.s ovid021ce o:f three o.n-et.cor1."'U.ption officicls Pli4; .Pl-15 nnd Pirl who 'sc,id they gave tho corl}?lcirumt · ~ts 2,000/= in 100/= notes and ht'.d their nunbors jotted clo1m. They r..ccorll)cniod tho con_plr:.incnt 'to the appcllo.nt 's • .L-• office, . tho conplninnnt entered end er,vc tho nonoy to the cp:pcllcnt. Tho squadnon seized tte L10noy in his possession~ this fo.ct of possession wcs proved boyond roasoru!ble doubts by tho feet thc,t tho powder which wcs cpplicd on. tho_ .notes wcs found on his h;mclso Thc:;:-o wr..s no m:~y 1)Y ,r!:ich tl10 powder . . could :roe.ch his_ hcnds unless ho toucl:.od tho notes. 3 ho r.ccoptod thor:. I ccrec ·with tha lor.rnod trinl nr.gistr1:te thc:t the_ prosecution hcd prqved their ccse beyond rccson£.blc doubts nnd he we.s ric):tly convicted. ,'ls I nlluded cbove the o.ppollr.nt WES chr.rcod with two ccYt.mts 8 solicit inc.· nnd rocoivi11£ and· he . . was convicted cs chnrc,od·. But the trfol r.u:cistrr.te inposod only c_,no sentence of five (5) yonrs inpris0n□ont.' To sot tl:c record rirht I sot t;sido the onnibus sentence. nnq. substitute thereof tho followi11c sop~rcto sentence: · .·. , ... ·--. ··.·. , . ..... ..-- 1st ·'bount: _ Five :(5) yori.rs inpris·onnof:lt O 2nd Co.unt: ~iYo (5) yccrs inprisoru:::ont? To.ru concm:ront lyo corrections tl:o nppea,l is clisr:1i:::m0c~ j_n its ontixotyir · ,- . . ' :...... .. .:. .. -. I., ' ~ ;. .. ·-' -·.. ··,' -► • ,1

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.

Prevention of Corruption 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.