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 the offence of attempted rape beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable identification, failure to call a material witness, and improper admission of the cautioned statement, rendering the conviction unsafe.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania upheld Kakila John’s murder conviction, finding PW1’s recognition evidence reliable and rejecting the alibi defence.
The Court of Appeal allowed a criminal appeal after finding the appellant was not sufficiently identified as the assailant and the prosecution failed to prove the case.
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused as there was no cogent evidence linking him to the offence of murder; identification evidence was weak and uncorroborated, and the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the crime against the accused.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed a robbery appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and held that delay in arrest, missing investigator evidence, and weak identification created doubt.
Appeal against murder convictions allowed after the Court found the single-witness visual and voice identification evidence unsafe.
The conviction was quashed because the evidence of visual identification was not watertight; prosecution witnesses failed to provide sufficient details regarding the intensity of light and circumstances of identification, creating a real possibility of mistaken identity. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
The conviction was based on insufficient and improperly admitted evidence, particularly unreliable visual and voice identification by PW1 and procedural irregularities in admitting witnesses and exhibits, rendering the conviction unsafe.
Source excerpt
The charge was incurably defective for failing to specify the category of rape and relevant subsection, which denied the appellant a fair trial; thus, the conviction and sentence could not stand.
Source excerpt
The appellant was properly identified by witnesses who were relatives and familiar with him, under adequate lighting conditions, and all possibilities of mistaken identity were excluded. The absence of PF3 and ballistic expert did not undermine the prosecution's case, and the expunged evidence from improper search and seizure did not affect the conviction.
Source excerpt
Explore more
