Tanzania Case Law

director of public prosecutions vs mateso albano kasianchupi 2020 tzhc 4205 18 november 2020

Court

TZHC

The trial court properly exercised sentencing discretion considering mitigating factors and respondent's guilty plea; section 84(1) allows discretion and does not mandate the minimum fine. The confiscation and forfeiture order was illegal due to lack of specificity and non-compliance with statutory procedures.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing discretion
• Confiscation and forfeiture
• Plea of guilty
• Minimum sentencing
• Property rights

Read case analysis

wanjara and others c republique unie de tanzanie requetes ns 0332015 2020 afchpr 18 25 septembre 2020

Court

TANZLII

The respondent violated Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter, read with Article 14(3)(d) ICCPR, by failing to provide free legal assistance to the applicants during their trial and appeal, despite their indigence and the seriousness of the charges. No violation occurred regarding the legality of the sentence or the evaluation of evidence by national courts.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Legal aid
• Assistance judiciaire gratuite
• Minimum sentencing
• Evaluation of evidence

Read case analysis

damiano qwade vs republic 2019 tzca 581 12 april 2019

Court

TZCA

The High Court's enhancement of sentence without hearing the appellant was a fatal error rendering the revisional order a nullity; the Court of Appeal quashed the High Court's revisional proceedings and order, but, exercising its own revisional powers, enhanced the sentence to the statutory minimum of thirty years' imprisonment.

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum sentencing
• Revisional jurisdiction
• Right to be heard

Read case analysis

20190411 TZCA Arusha2

Court

TZCA

The High Court's enhancement of sentence without hearing the appellant violated section 373(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and was a nullity; the original sentence was illegal under the Minimum Sentences Act; the Court of Appeal, exercising revisional powers, quashed the High Court's order and imposed the statutory minimum sentence.

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum sentencing
• Revisional jurisdiction
• Right to be heard

Read case analysis

damiano qadwe vs republic 2019 tzca 37 11 april 2019

Court

TZCA

The High Court's enhancement of sentence without hearing the appellant violated section 373(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and was a nullity; the original sentence was illegal and required enhancement to the statutory minimum.

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum sentencing
• Revisional jurisdiction
• Right to be heard

Read case analysis

mango e outros c republica unida da tanzania processo n 0082015 2019 afchpr 17 26 setembro 2019

Court

TANZLII

The joint claims regarding discrimination in presidential pardon are inadmissible due to failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The claims of Shukrani Masegenya Mango and Samwel M Mtakibidya regarding legality of minimum sentences for armed robbery are admissible, but the sentences imposed are consistent with Tanzanian law and do not violate the right to a fair trial under Article 7(2) of the African Charter.

Source excerpt

• Prerrogative of presidential pardon
• Non-discrimination
• Minimum sentencing
• Fair trial
• Prisoners' rights

Read case analysis

mango and others c republique unie de tanzanie requete n0082015 2019 afchpr 79 26 septembre 2019

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that all applicants, except for the first and seventh regarding the legality of their sentence, failed to exhaust available domestic remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter. The claim of discrimination in the application of presidential pardon was therefore inadmissible. On the merits, the Court held that the minimum sentence of 30 years for armed robbery was lawful and in force at the time of the applicants’ convictions, and thus there was no violation of the right to a fair trial or the principle of legality.

Source excerpt

• Presidential pardon
• Non-discrimination
• Equality before the law
• Prisoners’ rights
• Right to fair trial
• Minimum sentencing

Read case analysis

amir and another v republica unida da tanzania processo n 0142015 2019 afchpr 80 28 novembro 2019

Court

TANZLII

The Tribunal found no violation regarding the legality of the sentence, as the minimum sentence of thirty years was prescribed by law at the time of the offence. However, the Tribunal determined that the State violated the applicants' right to be informed of their right to legal representation and failed to provide free legal aid, constituting a breach of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, read with Article 14(3)(d) ICCPR.

Source excerpt

• Right to fair trial
• Legal aid
• Right to information
• Minimum sentencing

Read case analysis

manyamba vs r 2009 tzca 4 20 november 2009

Court

TZCA

The Court of Appeal upheld a rape conviction, finding PW1 and PW2 credible and sufficient despite no sketch map and no doctor’s oral testimony on the PF3.

• Rape
• Evidence
• Appeals
• Credibility of witnesses
• Minimum sentencing
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis

mussa rashidi another vs republic 2008 tzhc 138 15 august 2008

Court

TZHC

The High Court upheld convictions for armed robbery, holding that recent possession of a stolen motorcycle justified the inference despite weak identification evidence.

• Armed robbery
• Doctrine of recent possession
• Identification evidence
• Minimum sentencing
• Armed-robbery
• Recent-possession

Read case analysis