19890823 TZHC Mwanza
- Citation
- 19890823 TZHC Mwanza
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 23 August 1989
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 23 August 1989
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
AppellantThe Republic
RespondentAmounts 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
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant solicited and received a bribe as a public officer
- 02
Whether the conviction was supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt
- 03
Appropriateness of sentencing for multiple counts
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
Legal principles
- 01
Prevention of Corruption Act
A public officer who solicits or receives a bribe commits an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- 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.
TZHC
Judgment· 23 August 1989
.... . ... --- ......_. ___ -~-- - -.-,.,, 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
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.