D.P.P.s vs Damiano Stanslaus Clement and Others (Criminal Appeal 325 of 2021) [2023] TZCA 230 (5 May 2023)

This is a criminal appeal in the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dodoma. The appellant is the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the respondents are Damiano Stanslaus Clement, Joseph Barie, and Mefunya Daud Kitamboro. The respondents were charged with four counts of unlawful possession and dealing in government trophies, specifically elephant tusks, contrary to various sections of the Wildlife Conservation Act No. 5 of 2009 and the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act [CAP 200 R.E. 2002]. The crimes were committed in two different districts, Chamwino and Manyoni.

The respondents were initially convicted on all counts and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for each count, with sentences to run consecutively. However, they successfully appealed to the High Court, which found that the trial court (the District Court of Manyoni) lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The High Court declared the trial, conviction, and sentence illegal, quashed the conviction, and set aside the sentence, leading to the respondents' release from custody.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court did have jurisdiction to try the case. The Court of Appeal agreed, citing section 113(2) of the Wildlife Conservation Act, which allows for offences under the Act to be tried in any district in Mainland Tanzania, regardless of where the arrest was made. The Court of Appeal also referenced section 387 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which states that a finding, sentence, or order should not be set aside merely because the trial took place in the wrong area, unless this error has caused a failure of justice.

The Court of Appeal found no evidence of such a failure of justice and concluded that no law was contravened when the respondents were tried in the District Court of Manyoni. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that a trial should not be invalidated due to jurisdictional issues unless a failure of justice has occurred.

The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the High Court's decision and ordered that the respondents' appeal be heard afresh by another Judge in the High Court.