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 High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction for unlawful possession of government trophy, holding that documentary evidence and a voluntary confession proved the case.
The absence of key exhibits in the electronic case file (eCMS) made it impossible for the appellate court to ascertain the accuracy and authenticity of the evidence relied upon for conviction, thereby undermining the conviction and sentence.
Source excerpt
The appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal, made in a language he understood, and amounted to an admission of all material facts constituting the offence; the conviction was not based on the exhibits but on the unequivocal plea, and the alleged procedural defects did not vitiate the conviction.
Source excerpt
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an unnatural offence against a child, based on the credible testimony of the victim and corroborating evidence, and the failure to read aloud the PF3 did not vitiate the conviction as the remaining evidence was sufficient.
Source excerpt
The appellant was properly identified by a credible witness who knew him before, spent ample time with him on the day of the offence, and caused his arrest. The prosecution's failure to tender the stolen motorcycle as exhibit did not vitiate the case as evidence showed it was disassembled and sold. The evidence was direct, not hearsay. The prosecution proved the offence of gang robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
The prosecution failed to prove the offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt due to failure to call key witnesses, material variance between charge and evidence, and improper admission of exhibits, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and necessitating acquittal.
Source excerpt
The prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, primarily due to unreliable identification evidence, lack of proper description and admission of exhibits, absence of material witnesses, and contradictions in prosecution testimony. The trial court erred in convicting the appellants without resolving these doubts.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a civil reference, holding that Order XLI rule 1 does not permit reference of interlocutory rulings already decided by the trial court.
The Court of Appeal allowed a second criminal appeal, quashed an armed robbery conviction, and held the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution proved the charge of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt by establishing possession of stolen property by the appellants, credible identification by the victim, compliance with chain of custody and exhibit admission procedures, and proper application of the doctrine of recent possession. Discrepancies in the charge sheet and evidence did not occasion injustice as only properties proved before the court formed the basis of conviction.
Source excerpt
Explore more
