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 court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant personated his deceased father, Busisi Binyara, with intent to defraud by representing himself as the rightful owner of the property. The evidence established that the appellant was not entitled to the property in question, and the trial court's conviction and sentence were justified.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed a criminal appeal, finding the charge defective for duplicity and holding the evidence insufficient to prove personation, uttering, or obtaining by false pretence.
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania dismissed a criminal appeal, holding that although the High Court failed to re-evaluate defence evidence, the convictions were still supported by the record.
The appellant was not guilty of personation in counts one and two as the evidence did not support the charges; however, he was properly convicted of personation in count three and false swearing in count four based on credible evidence that he falsely used the name George Lucas and made a false affirmation regarding his identity.
Source excerpt
Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; respondents had valid license and transit pass; sentence imposed on 5th respondent was lawful; no basis for forfeiture of exhibits.
Source excerpt
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant fraudulently used the name George Lucas or committed false swearing; documentary evidence and explanations provided by the appellant were not properly challenged or disproved.
Source excerpt
Conviction was based on unreliable visual identification and untendered exhibits; prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; trial court erred in relying on evidence not properly admitted and in ordering consecutive sentences.
Source excerpt
The trial court failed to objectively evaluate the defense evidence, but upon re-evaluation, the evidence against the 1st and 3rd appellants was sufficient for conviction; however, there was no evidence implicating the 2nd appellant beyond co-accused confessions, so his conviction and sentence were quashed.
Source excerpt
Second appeal against convictions for obtaining goods by false pretence and rape dismissed; the Court found no contradictions in the evidence and no basis to disturb concurrent findings.
The trial was a nullity due to the successor magistrate's failure to record reasons for taking over the case as required by section 214(1) of the CPA, and the trial magistrate's failure to consider the defence case in the judgment. These procedural errors vitiated the conviction and sentence, warranting quashing of the judgment and immediate release of the appellants.
Source excerpt
Explore more
