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 conviction was quashed because the prosecution witnesses failed to mention the appellant at the earliest opportunity, undermining the reliability of identification by recognition, and raising a reasonable doubt as to whether the appellant was properly identified at the scene of crime.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania upheld convictions for armed robbery, finding the appellants were properly identified by recognition and suffered no unfair-trial prejudice.
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as the conviction was based solely on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness (PW2), with no testimony from the victim or medical doctor, and the key documentary evidence (PF3 and confession) was expunged. Suspicion alone cannot sustain a conviction.
Source excerpt
Appeal against murder convictions allowed after the Court found the single-witness visual and voice identification evidence unsafe.
The Court found that the identification evidence by PW2 was credible and sufficient, as she knew the appellant well, identified him using a torch during the incident, and named him immediately after the crime. Any contradictions in evidence were immaterial and did not undermine the prosecution's case. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld as there was no misdirection or miscarriage of justice.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed a murder appeal, finding visual identification unreliable because lighting, distance, and crowd conditions were not proved.
The conviction was unsafe because the conditions for visual identification and recognition were not sufficiently established; the complainant failed to specify the intensity and position of lighting, and did not immediately disclose the appellant's identity to neighbors or police, leaving open the possibility of mistaken identity. The prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
Explore more
