Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The conviction was quashed because the appellant was charged and convicted under non-existent and incorrect legal provisions, and the amendment of the charge at the judgment stage was irregular and resulted in a failure of justice that could not be cured under section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Source excerpt
The trial court's failure to record its order on amendment of charge and noncompliance with mandatory preliminary hearing requirements, including reading and signing the memorandum of agreed facts, constituted fatal irregularities warranting quashing and nullification of the affected proceedings.
Source excerpt
The conviction and sentence were quashed because the charge sheet was incurably defective, failing to name the appellant as the suspect and failing to properly identify the victim, thus depriving the appellant of a fair trial and rendering the prosecution's case unproved.
Source excerpt
The High Court nullified a criminal appeal trial for failure to take a fresh plea after amendment of the charge and ordered a retrial before a different magistrate.
The trial magistrate erred in dismissing the charge and acquitting the respondent due to a minor misspelling of the victim's surname; the proper remedy was to order amendment of the charge under section 234(1) of the CPA, not acquittal.
Source excerpt
The charge was materially at variance with the evidence regarding both the nature of the offence (rape vs. gang rape) and the place of commission, and no amendment was made; this prejudiced the appellant and rendered the charge unproved beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
The conviction could not stand because there was a material variance between the date of offence in the charge sheet and the evidence adduced, and the charge was not amended to reflect the correct date. This variance rendered the charge unproved beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the appellants to acquittal.
Source excerpt
The conviction was quashed because there was a material variance between the particulars of the charge and the prosecution evidence regarding the number of stolen khangas, which was not cured by amendment, rendering the charge defective and unproven. Further, the doctrine of recent possession was inapplicable as the prosecution failed to prove the seized khangas belonged to the complainant or were in the appellant's possession.
Source excerpt
The prosecution proved the elements of forcible entry and violence, but failed to prove grievous harm; the sentence imposed was illegal as it did not consider the statutory option of a fine; the alibi defence was not properly raised; conviction for grievous harm is set aside and substituted with assault occasioning actual bodily harm; sentences are quashed and fines imposed in accordance with the law.
Source excerpt
The conviction was quashed because the variance between the name in the charge sheet and the evidence was not cured by amendment, resulting in failure of justice and rendering the charge unproved. Additionally, the evidence of the children of tender age was improperly admitted due to non-compliance with section 127(2) of the Evidence Act.
Source excerpt
Explore more
