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 applicants failed to substantiate their reasons for delay with evidence and did not account for each day of delay; however, the alleged illegality in sentencing—failure to consider the alternative of a fine for first offenders—raises a serious legal issue apparent on the face of the record, justifying extension of time in the interests of justice.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld a conviction for cattle theft on a guilty plea but reduced the 15-year sentence to three years after finding the sentence excessive.
The court held that section 29(2) of the National Park Act, Cap 282, grants the trial court discretion to order forfeiture and does not make it mandatory. The trial magistrate properly exercised this discretion in releasing the cows, as the prosecution failed to prove the extent of disturbance to the habitat. The appeal was dismissed as both grounds lacked merit.
Source excerpt
The conviction for impregnating a school girl was upheld based on the credible and corroborated evidence of the victim and other witnesses; DNA evidence is not a legal requirement. The maximum sentence of 30 years was set aside because the trial court failed to provide reasons and consider mitigating factors; a sentence of 7 years was substituted as appropriate.
Source excerpt
The conviction was upheld as the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, supported by consistent witness testimony and the appellant's failure to challenge the evidence. The sentence was reduced from thirty to ten years as the law provides a maximum, not mandatory, sentence and the trial court acted on a wrong principle.
Source excerpt
The trial court acted within its discretion under the Wildlife Conservation Act to impose custodial sentences without offering a fine option, given the prevalence and seriousness of the offences. Appellants, having pleaded guilty, cannot challenge the conviction, and no illegality or impropriety was found in the sentences imposed.
Source excerpt
High Court upheld a conviction for impregnating a schoolgirl, finding the victim’s credible evidence and medical proof sufficient, but reduced the 30-year sentence to three years.
The Court of Appeal upheld Shagi Mang'oma’s conviction for impregnating a schoolgirl, but reduced his sentence from 30 years to 6 years after finding the maximum term excessive.
The trial court erred by imposing custodial sentences without first considering the option of a fine as required by law, especially since the appellants were first offenders who pleaded guilty and the offences were not grave. The order for consecutive sentences was also improper in the absence of special circumstances.
Source excerpt
There was no evidence that appellants refused to allow the children to return to the house as per the tribunal order; lower courts misinterpreted the order as requiring eviction rather than return of children. Conviction and sentence were not supported by evidence and must be set aside.
Source excerpt
Explore more
