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 quashed a rape conviction after finding age was not properly determined, the child witness evidence was irregularly received, and a caution statement was inadmissible.
Material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and failure to call key witnesses rendered the prosecution case unproven beyond reasonable doubt, requiring acquittal.
Source excerpt
The trial magistrate exercised discretion properly in ordering forfeiture and considered mitigation; however, the fines imposed on minors should have been directed to their parents or guardians as per the Law of the Child Act.
Source excerpt
The conviction was quashed because the charge sheet was at variance with the evidence, material contradictions in prosecution evidence undermined credibility, and the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was under 18 when the rape was committed, and that life imprisonment was illegal. It substituted corporal punishment and ordered his release.
The Court of Appeal upheld murder convictions of two minors, holding their extra-judicial statements were admissible, text-message contradictions were immaterial, and detention at the President’s pleasure was lawful.
The trial court's failure to properly inquire into the appellant's age and to afford him a right to be heard on that issue was a fatal irregularity that rendered the entire proceedings and sentence a nullity. The appellant should have been tried as a juvenile if under 18, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try and sentence him as an adult.
Source excerpt
The conviction and sentence were unlawful because the appellant, being 18 years old at the time of the offence, should not have been sentenced to imprisonment, and the testimony of the child victim was improperly admitted without the required promise to tell the truth, rendering the conviction unsafe.
Source excerpt
The High Court granted an out-of-time appeal application, finding the alleged illegality of the sentence could justify extension of time.
The appellant's conviction was proper as the prosecution evidence was credible, consistent, and corroborated, and the charge was not fatally defective; however, the sentence of life imprisonment was illegal as the appellant was 18 years old at the time of the offence, contrary to section 160B of the Penal Code.
Source excerpt
Explore more
