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 prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was found in possession of the stolen goods because the purported certificate of seizure was not valid, and the oral evidence of seizure was unsupported, rendering the conviction unsafe.
Source excerpt
Charging and convicting the appellant for both stealing and possession of the same suspected stolen property, without charging in the alternative, amounted to duplicity and was improper. Both convictions and sentences are quashed and set aside. Retrial is ordered.
Source excerpt
The conviction was upheld because the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt through oral evidence, CCTV footage, recovery of the ATM card, and the appellant's own confession. The absence of a death certificate and documentary employment evidence did not undermine the prosecution's case, as these facts were established by credible oral testimony and not contested at trial. The confessional statement was properly admitted and corroborated by other evidence.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, quashed the conviction for possession of suspected stolen property, and set aside a two-year sentence.
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, quashed convictions for forgery and related offences, and set aside the sentence after finding contradictory prosecution evidence.
The High Court quashed David Edward’s conviction for possession of suspected stolen property, finding the charge was wrongly framed and the trial was vitiated.
The conviction was unsafe due to unresolved contradictions in visual identification evidence and a broken chain of custody for the alleged stolen bicycle, rendering both the identification and the doctrine of recent possession unreliable.
Source excerpt
The High Court set aside an irregular alternative conviction, holding it was not minor or cognate to the original stealing charge and allowed the appeal.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offences of shop breaking and stealing, as there was no direct evidence of breaking, no corroboration of the incident, and no proof of ownership of the alleged stolen property. The trial court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the appellant and in convicting based on the weakness of the defence.
Source excerpt
The prosecution failed to prove the offences of forgery and uttering a false document beyond reasonable doubt due to inadmissibility of key documentary evidence and non-compliance with Section 34B of the Evidence Act. However, the conviction for possession of suspected stolen property was upheld as the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for possession of the goods.
Source excerpt
Explore more
