19830716 TZHC Mbeya3
The conviction was based solely on an inadmissible confession before a police officer, with no corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the unlawful possession of government trophy.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19830716 TZHC Mbeya3
- Parties
- Appellant: Wsuiri Syo Ivupuvimb; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 16 July 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction set aside
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Possession, Government Trophy, Evidence Admissibility
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wsuiri Syo Ivupuvimb
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was lawfully convicted for unlawful possession of government trophy
- 2 Admissibility of confession before police officer
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was based solely on an inadmissible confession before a police officer, with no corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the unlawful possession of government trophy.
Court Disposition
conviction set aside
Orders
- appellant acquitted
- sentence quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THL' HIGH COURT OPTJd\iZAIA AIIL1LtTE JURISDICTION (Lboya Registry) ORflfliAL APPEAL NO. 23 OP 1981 OflIGINAL 'CflIMINAJ. cisE'No. 120 OF 1976 .OFTI{E DISTRICT COURT OP hBOZI DISTRIOI' AT M)ZI Before: P. h. K. h!wamwaja,Dibtrict Magitrate. wsuirr SYO IvuPU1VIB • •• . .. ..... . APFELLNT vsUS THE 13-kU3LIC ..... '.e.....o ...... RESPONDENT OHiRGE: Unlawful possession of Government Thophy c/s.67 (i) and (2) (a) of iildlife Ccnservatich tct, No.1201 1974 Jm)GiHNT The appellant ias covioted of o counts of off onces coner. wildli.fe laws. The story was that on 25/4/76 P.C. . "sis (i.i) had in1onation that thu app11 had ioopni'J skins in h)US? iJ.legaU.y. On 26/4/76 he went to the apj..Uant's huse and earchd him. He found nothing. He insistud that appe11an t, tUs him thre he hid the 4kino. The appellant suggested that iis uncle &iso flight have removed then !'m the house as he also possessi the keys. Tib JPoliceLnelii (Pw.i) went to Einson and found two leopard sk4ns. Both of them were chared joint1 for two counts; being in tm1aiful possession of Govement trophy and £ailij • to report the same. In their defence the a;peilant (1st accused) clenia know1dge of the trophy while .mon (2nrl tccueci) stated that the trophy • *am brought into his house by the appellant. The trial magistrate ehviu'ed the appellant as charged ani sentendd hir.ito 3 years aind. 6 t4blithe concurrent. He acquitted the other guy ion as on bnet he convict appealed. The 'learned trial maistrate missed the point. The only Qvino which tended to implicate th appellant was that of the Polican (J who said the appellant akiited before him that he had tho'skininb.t house and that it tiht haves been his uncle who had rezaoved then,. then confegon before a Polioe Ufficer'wao jnadiasibLe. Ea the been in the bush and the appellant led the Policeman to where they W4 hiddri it,woulcl ha been another matter; Bt t'y were 'found in (2) sonieoody (2nd) aeoused)'s house. He ae no xp1anation why he should haw accepted the skns to be kept .n his house. He knew it aa an