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 allowed a criminal appeal after finding the prosecution failed to prove chain of custody for seized government trophies, quashing the conviction and 10-year sentence.
The Court of Appeal held that failure to inform the accused of the right to recall witnesses after a substituted charge made the later proceedings a nullity.
The chain of custody for Exhibit P1 was not properly established due to material contradictions and missing links in the movement and handling of the exhibit, rendering the evidence unreliable and insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Source excerpt
The trial court failed to comply with section 226(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act by not bringing the appellant before the court upon re-arrest to explain his absence, rendering the proceedings a nullity. Additionally, improper sampling and illegal search procedures created reasonable doubt, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence are quashed and the appellant is to be released.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal after finding the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody for alleged trophies and related exhibits.
The conviction was quashed because the evidence was unreliable, the search was illegal, identification of property was inadequate, and there was no voluntary admission corroborated by independent evidence.
Source excerpt
The conviction was quashed due to lack of reliable evidence, inadequate identification of property, illegal search, and absence of corroborated confession.
Source excerpt
The money seized by the appellant from the suspect and his relatives came into his possession by virtue of his employment as a police officer, and the evidence supports the finding that he stole it; thus, the conviction for stealing by a public servant is upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
