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 accused intentionally killed the deceased with malice aforethought, as evidenced by his actions before, during, and after the offence. His intoxication was self-induced and did not render him incapable of understanding his actions. The prosecution proved the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
Failure to comply with the mandatory steps in the Chief Justice Guidelines, specifically regarding voluntariness and free agency, renders the extrajudicial statement inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The prosecution proved the accused caused the deceased's death, but failed to establish malice aforethought due to the fight circumstances, lack of evidence of prior threats, and the deceased being the initial aggressor. Thus, the offence is manslaughter, not murder.
Source excerpt
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Juma Masanja stabbed the deceased with a knife, causing septic shock and death, with malice aforethought, and the accused's defence was a general denial unsupported by evidence.
Source excerpt
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered his parents, based on credible eyewitness testimony, the accused's own caution statement admitting the crime, and corroborating forensic evidence. The defence of alibi was improperly raised and uncorroborated, and did not shake the prosecution case.
Source excerpt
The accused committed the act of murder but was insane at the time, as established by the medical report and in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act, and is therefore not guilty by reason of insanity.
Source excerpt
The prosecution failed to prove malice aforethought beyond reasonable doubt as the death occurred during a fight; thus, the accused is guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
Source excerpt
The accused murdered Cecilia Adrian, but at the time of the offence was insane due to schizophrenia, as established by medical evidence and corroborated by eyewitness testimony. Therefore, he is not criminally responsible for murder by reason of insanity and must be detained as a mentally disordered offender under section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Source excerpt
The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, through credible and reliable eyewitness testimony (Pw-2), corroborated by medical and investigative evidence, that the accused persons participated in the attack and murder of the deceased with malice aforethought. The visual identification was deemed reliable due to daylight conditions, prior acquaintance, and immediate naming of the accused. The defence failed to raise reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld a murder conviction, rejecting arguments on intoxication, burden of proof, and witness-listing errors, though it expunged improperly admitted exhibits.
Explore more
