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 dismissed a criminal appeal in a 972-count stealing-by-servant case, holding the prosecution failed to prove cash theft beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to prove the offence of stealing by servant against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory evidence, failure to call material witnesses, improper admission and reliance on exhibits, and the trial court's failure to consider the defence evidence and provide adequate reasons for conviction.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld a stealing-by-servant conviction, finding circumstantial evidence sufficient, but replaced the custodial sentence with payment of the outstanding sum.
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to defective charge sheet, variance in material particulars, and non-consideration of defence evidence.
Source excerpt
The High Court partly allowed a criminal appeal, quashing the first stealing count, upholding the remaining convictions, and changing sentences to run concurrently.
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, finding the evidence was improperly recorded and the charge sheet was incurably defective for lack of particulars.
High Court criminal appeal on stealing by servant. The court held that omission of section 265 was not fatal, quashed the acquittal, and entered conviction.
The prosecution failed to prove the charge of stealing by servant beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable and inadmissible documentary evidence, unclear employment relationship, and improper compensation order; conviction and sentence were quashed and payment order set aside.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove stealing by servant beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence before it.
High Court granted bail pending trial to the applicant, holding it had jurisdiction because the alleged loss exceeded TZS 10 million and the respondent did not oppose.
Explore more
