Tanzania Case Law

ZALINA MAULIDI SHABANI VERSUS ZAUDA SWALEHE MSAMI

Court

TANZLII

The prosecution failed to prove the offence of threatening to kill beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in the evidence and failure to establish the necessary elements of the offence. The trial court did not analyze the defence evidence, and the first appellate court properly re-evaluated the evidence and found no procedural irregularities. The grounds of appeal lacked merit and the decision of the first appellate court was upheld.

Source excerpt

• Threatening to kill
• Burden of proof
• Evaluation of evidence
• Appellate review
• Procedural irregularities

Read case analysis

magreth yahaya vs anton felix 2022 tzhc 12954 20 september 2022

Court

TZHC

The appellant's evidence was ambiguous and did not prove the offence of threatening to kill beyond reasonable doubt; the District Court was correct in reversing the conviction.

Source excerpt

• Threatening to kill
• Burden of proof
• Criminal procedure
• Right to be heard

Read case analysis

asha hassan vs emmanuel magembe and 2 others 2020 tzhc 2430 31 july 2020

Court

TZHC

The 1st respondent's utterance of threatening words completed the offence under section 89(2) of the Penal Code; subsequent departure from the scene was immaterial. The lower courts' reasoning was legally and logically flawed, warranting interference and conviction.

Source excerpt

• Threatening to kill
• Community service sentencing
• Appellate review

Read case analysis

20180420 TZHC Dodoma

Court

TZHC

The appellant failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction cannot be based on weaknesses in the defense case. The prosecution did not discharge its burden of proof, and the case relied solely on uncorroborated circumstantial evidence.

Source excerpt

• Threatening to kill
• Burden of proof
• Circumstantial evidence
• Standard of proof

Read case analysis

19960724 TZHC Dar es Salaam

Court

TZHC

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal, holding the evidence did not support stealing, kidnapping, or threats to kill, and quashed a substituted conviction.

• Kidnapping
• Stealing
• Threatening to kill
• Wrongful confinement
• Criminal-appeal
• Wrongful-confinement

Read case analysis