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 prosecution failed to prove the offence of store breaking and stealing against the appellant, but the conviction for failure to prevent the commission of the offence was proper as the appellant was responsible for security.
Source excerpt
The prosecution failed to prove the offence of store breaking against the appellant, but the conviction for failure to prevent the commission of the offence was proper as the appellant was responsible for the security of the premises.
Source excerpt
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence, ownership, and identification of the alleged stolen items, and failed to properly admit key evidence under section 34B of the Evidence Act. The contradictions and variance in dates between the charge and the evidence, as well as reliance on suspicion, rendered the conviction unsafe.
Source excerpt
The appeal partly succeeded: the conviction for breaking and stealing was quashed, replaced with possession of suspected stolen property, and the sentence reduced to three years.
The conviction was unsafe as it was based solely on an uncorroborated, repudiated cautioned statement of a co-accused, and the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the property found with the appellant belonged to the complainant.
Source excerpt
The conviction was upheld as the appellant's confession, corroborated by independent evidence and recovery of stolen property, proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal and was revised to comply with statutory limits.
Source excerpt
The appellant's conviction was upheld because the confession was voluntary and corroborated by independent evidence, the doctrine of recent possession applied, and the prosecution evidence was sufficient. However, the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal as it exceeded the statutory maximum, and was revised to 18 months imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently.
Source excerpt
The conviction was upheld because the appellant's confession was voluntary and corroborated by independent evidence, the doctrine of recent possession applied, and the prosecution evidence was sufficient. However, the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal as it exceeded the statutory maximum; the appellate court revised the sentence to 18 months imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
Source excerpt
The High Court quashed two convictions for store breaking and stealing, finding problems with the search, exhibit objections, and identification of stolen items.
The High Court quashed a conviction for possession of stolen property after finding contradictory prosecution evidence and an unsafe identification process.
Explore more
