Tanzania Case Law

JUDGMENT ROBERT KISAWIA KWEKA VS REPUBLIC

Court

TANZLII

The appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and properly taken, the variance in the weight of the narcotic drugs between the charge sheet and the facts was not fatal or prejudicial, and after an unequivocal plea of guilty, the prosecution was not required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were lawful and are upheld.

Source excerpt

• Plea of guilty
• Unlawful possession of narcotic drugs
• Variance between charge and facts
• Appeal against conviction and sentence

Read case analysis

Fadhil Joseph vs Republic

Court

TANZLII

The plea of guilty was not unequivocal due to confusion between use of force and statutory rape, preventing the appellant from fully comprehending the charge.

Source excerpt

• Statutory rape
• Plea of guilty
• Variance between charge and facts

Read case analysis

Paulo Kaparage vs Republic Criminal Appeal No 73 of 2021 2023 TZCA 17703 3 October 2023

Court

TZCA

Court of Appeal nullified a conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon in a game area after finding the charge fatally defective and the plea equivocal.

• Defective charge
• Plea of guilty
• Jurisdiction
• Variance between charge and facts
• Sentencing
• Economic offences

Read case analysis

kwizi edgar lubava and another vs republic 2023 tzhc 20720 1 september 2023

Court

TZHC

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal, holding that the appellants’ guilty plea to armed robbery was unequivocal and the charge-fact variance was not fatal.

• Armed robbery
• Plea of guilty
• Procedural irregularities
• Variance between charge and facts
• Criminal-appeal
• Guilty-plea

Read case analysis

Charles Sambala

Court

TANZLII

The appellant's plea of guilty was equivocal due to material variance between the charge sheet and the facts read in court, rendering the conviction and sentence a nullity.

Source excerpt

• Plea of guilty
• Variance between charge and facts
• Armed robbery
• Conviction on plea
• Retrial

Read case analysis

Juma and 3 other vs R Judgment Final

Court

TANZLII

The pleas of guilty entered by the appellants were equivocal due to a defective and ambiguous charge, variance between the charge and the facts, and failure to ensure the appellants understood the ingredients of the offences. The trial court erred in convicting and sentencing the appellants on such pleas.

Source excerpt

• Plea of guilty
• Criminal trespass
• Unlawful possession
• Defective charge
• Variance between charge and facts

Read case analysis

19750609 TZHC Mwanza

Court

TZHC

The High Court quashed a stealing conviction on a guilty plea because the facts did not disclose the offence and the charge particulars did not match the facts.

• Stealing
• Plea of guilty
• Variance between charge and facts
• Conviction on plea
• Criminal-law
• Guilty-plea

Read case analysis