|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1974 |
|
|
Appellate court set aside magistrate's unreasoned order for separate trials and directed compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code on joinder.
Criminal procedure — Joinder and non-joinder of accused and counts — Magistrate must apply Criminal Procedure Code and give reasons for refusal to join trials — Appellate court may set aside order where no reasons given — Interests of justice and witness hardship relevant to joinder.
|
23 December 1974 |
|
Appeal against thirty-four convictions for obtaining money by false pretences dismissed; evidence sufficient and concurrent three-year sentences upheld.
* Criminal law – Obtaining money by false pretences – Presentation and cashing of cheques that later bounced – Recovery of cheque books and bank officials' testimony as sufficient evidence to convict.
* Evidence – Sufficiency of prosecution evidence in cheque-related fraud – corroboration by bank records and witness testimony.
* Sentencing – Concurrent three-year terms upheld as not excessive.
* Appeal – Conviction and sentence affirmed where record supports guilt and punishment.
|
18 December 1974 |
|
Appellants' convictions for stealing goods in transit upheld based on police recovery and possession evidence.
Criminal law – Stealing goods in transit (ss. 269(c), 265 Penal Code) – Evidence of possession and recovery from scene – Ocular police evidence – Allegation of planting of exhibits – Appellate interference with credibility findings.
|
18 December 1974 |
|
Appellant's conviction for store-breaking upheld where circumstantial evidence and witness testimony sufficiently proved guilt.
* Criminal law – Store breaking and committing a felony (s.296(1) Penal Code) – Circumstantial evidence (footprints, cement powder, missing bags) – sufficiency to sustain conviction.
* Evidence – Credibility of accused's defence contradicted by witness testimony – trial court entitled to disbelieve accused.
* Appeal – Conviction and sentence upheld where evidence properly evaluated by lower court.
|
18 December 1974 |
|
Appellate court upheld deterrent imprisonment for burglary, finding prevalence of the offence justified the sentence.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Burglary and stealing – Appellate review of sentence – Trial court’s sentencing discretion – Deterrent sentences justified by prevalence of crime – First offender and low value of stolen property not sufficient to warrant reduction.
|
18 December 1974 |
|
Appellant's conviction for stealing by a public servant upheld; wrong section cured; sentence reduced to three years.
* Criminal law – Theft by public servant – sections 270 and 265 Penal Code – evidence of cheque cashed and cash handed to accused establishes offence. * Procedural law – Wrong statutory citation curable under section 346 Criminal Procedure Code; conviction may be substituted. * Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act, 1972 – statutory minimum three years; departure requires very good grounds; excessive sentence reduced. * Evidence – credibility of unshaken witness testimony and corroboration by documentary exhibit (cashed cheque).
|
13 December 1974 |
|
Burglary conviction upheld on in‑the‑act identification; seven‑year sentence reduced to four years for first offender.
* Criminal law – Burglary (s.294 Penal Code) – in‑the‑act apprehension and victim/neighbour identification sufficient to establish entry by breaking and intent to steal.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal against sentence – appellate review of excessive sentence for a first offender and substitution with a reduced term.
|
13 December 1974 |
|
Seriousness of charge alone does not bar bail; court granted bail with monetary and surety conditions.
Bail — Whether seriousness of offence alone justifies refusal — Proper test is likelihood of appearance and risk of interference — Severity of punishment relevant but not determinative — Grant of bail with conditions where no evidence of flight or interference.
|
12 December 1974 |
|
Theft conviction quashed for insufficient proof; substituted and upheld convictions for possession of suspected stolen property (section 312 Penal Code).
* Criminal law — Theft in transit — sufficiency of evidence — identity of stolen goods — trade name alone insufficient to establish nexus to specific stolen consignments.
* Evidence — Hostile witnesses — section 164 Evidence Act — court consent required and proper procedure (tender prior statement and put inconsistencies) must be followed.
* Criminal procedure — Section 187(1) Criminal Procedure Code — substitution of conviction for a lesser/unpleaded offence when principal charge not proved.
* Possession of suspected stolen property — section 312 Penal Code — appellate affirmation where evidence of possession and suspicious circumstances is overwhelming.
|
11 December 1974 |
|
Appellate court upheld conviction on a single credible witness and confirmed a two-year sentence under mandatory confirmation provisions.
* Evidence – single witness testimony – Section 143 Evidence Act 1967 – conviction permissible on credible single witness. * Credibility – appellate deference to trial magistrate’s findings based on opportunity to see/hear witnesses. * Sentencing – two-year term for theft; not excessive. * Procedure – mandatory High Court confirmation under s.7(2) Criminal Procedure Code as amended by Minimum Sentences Act.
|
11 December 1974 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and s.154B fingerprint report sufficed to convict for vehicle theft; three-year sentence confirmed.
* Criminal law – theft of motor vehicle – circumstantial evidence – sufficiency of chain of inference to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. * Evidence – fingerprint report admissible under s.154B Criminal Procedure Code; duty and discretion to summon fingerprint expert under s.154B(3). * Defence of being a passenger – rejected where other co-existing circumstances (sightings, altered plates, flight when approached) negate innocence. * Sentencing – three-year term upheld; subordinate-court sentences exceeding 12 months require High Court confirmation (s.7(2) CPC).
|
11 December 1974 |
|
Conviction for possession of government trophy quashed due to unsafe identification and contradictory witness evidence; forfeiture upheld.
* Criminal law — possession of government trophy (ivory) — identification evidence — unsafe conviction where visual identification unideal and witness accounts contradictory.
* Evidence — hostile witness procedure — section 164 Evidence Act — correct steps to prove inconsistent prior statements and allow explanation.
* Appeals — appellate re-evaluation of evidence and drawing own inferences where identification is in dispute.
* Property — forfeiture of Government trophy upheld despite quashed conviction.
|
11 December 1974 |
|
Court upheld convictions for theft by public employees, rejecting their claim they acted on the watchman’s instruction.
Criminal law – Theft by person employed in public service; evidence – credibility of witnesses; defence of lawful instruction; circumstantial and direct evidence of possession.
|
3 December 1974 |
| November 1974 |
|
|
Appellant driver who vouched for companions convicted for attempted robbery and joint possession under common intention.
* Criminal law – Attempted robbery – Common intention – Liability of a driver who accompanies and vouches for alleged co-offenders.
* Criminal law – Joint possession of firearm – Circumstantial evidence linking weapon found in vehicle to the house-breaking incident.
* Evidence – Identification and circumstantial evidence – Sufficiency to sustain conviction.
|
29 November 1974 |
|
Conviction and sentence are invalid where guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt and no recorded judgment exists.
Criminal procedure – conviction and sentence without a recorded judgment – failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – procedural defect requiring quashing of conviction and referral for revision.
|
29 November 1974 |
|
Convictions for forgery, uttering and servant's theft upheld; mandatory minimum sentence set aside for lack of proof of "specified authority".
Criminal law – Forgery and uttering false documents – proof by comparison of original and duplicate receipts; Theft by servant – unexplained shortfall as evidence of theft; Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act 1972 – requirement to prove employer is a "specified authority"/subsidiary by Registrar's certificate; discretionary relief under s.6 where amount small.
|
27 November 1974 |
|
Identification by the complainant was held reliable and the conviction for stealing from the person was upheld.
Criminal law – Stealing from the person – Identification evidence – Positive identification by complainant after pursuit held reliable; absence of multiple bystanders not fatal to prosecution; brief unsworn denial insufficient to rebut prosecution’s case.
|
15 November 1974 |
|
First appellant's conviction sustained on identification and recovered cash; second appellant acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence.
Criminal law – Theft by servant (s.273(b) Penal Code) – Identification parade and recovery of stolen property – Sufficiency of evidence; Circumstantial evidence versus suspicion; Requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
15 November 1974 |
|
Appellant's admission and matching medical evidence upheld rape conviction; sentence reduced from five to two years for first offender.
* Criminal law – Rape – Sufficiency of evidence – Admission to community leaders and corroborative medical evidence supporting conviction.
* Sentencing – Appropriateness of sentence – Reduction of an arguably severe sentence for a first offender from five to two years.
|
15 November 1974 |
|
Recent possession of stolen property and credible prosecution evidence sustain conviction for store breaking and stealing.
Criminal law – Store breaking and stealing; doctrine of recent possession; credibility of witnesses; circumstantial evidence linking accused to stolen property.
|
15 November 1974 |
|
Conviction quashed where inconsistencies and investigative weaknesses left reasonable doubt about alleged theft.
Criminal law – Stealing – Burden of proof and reasonable doubt; inconsistency between charge and evidence (12 alleged v. five proven); witness credibility and investigation deficiencies; remedy: conviction quashed, civil action for recovery of property suggested.
|
13 November 1974 |
|
Retrial and conviction on counts previously acquitted breach section 139 and justify quashing and release.
Criminal law – Double jeopardy – Section 139 Criminal Procedure Code – Prohibition on retrial after conviction or acquittal; convictions entered on counts previously acquitted are quashed; appellant to be released where remaining acquittal unappealed.
|
13 November 1974 |
|
Forfeiture set aside where Fisheries Regulations did not confer power to order forfeiture; fish/value returned to convicted persons.
Criminal law — Fisheries (General) Regulations 1973 — sentencing powers — forfeiture of property — absence of statutory authority to forfeit — appellate setting aside of forfeiture; principle that magistrates should not impose punishments not provided by law.
|
13 November 1974 |
|
Mandatory minimum sentence for scheduled offences cannot be reduced for family hardship; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Scheduled offences – Mandatory minimum sentence – Appeals against sentence – Mitigating factors (family commitments) insufficient to displace statutory minimum.
|
3 November 1974 |
|
Appeal dismissed where identification of stolen property and circumstantial evidence upheld the appellant's conviction.
* Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Sufficiency of evidence – Recovery of stolen property and possession shortly after offence – Identification by special marks.
* Circumstantial evidence – Tracing of footmarks linking scene to accused – admissibility and weight of such evidence.
* Appeal – evaluation of trial court's acceptance of identification and rejection of accused's ownership claims.
|
1 November 1974 |
|
Appellate court affirms conviction for stealing by servant, finding appellant’s explanation and documents not credible.
* Criminal law – Stealing by servant – Possession of collected funds by branch officer – Credibility of explanations regarding authorisation and return of funds; sufficiency of evidence to uphold conviction.
|
1 November 1974 |
| October 1974 |
|
|
Appeals dismissed; convictions for conspiracy and theft upheld on ample evidence and reasonable concurrent sentences.
* Criminal law – Conspiracy to commit felony – forged invoice presented for payment – admission corroborating prosecution evidence.
* Theft – stealing by a public servant; theft of government property – elements established where false invoice procured payment.
* Sentencing – concurrent terms; reasonableness of sentence relative to amount defrauded and circumstances.
|
22 October 1974 |
|
Sole custody of safe keys and failure to explain missing funds justified conviction for stealing by servant; sentence affirmed.
Criminal law – Stealing by servant – Circumstantial evidence – Sole custody of safe keys; no evidence of tampering or loss; failure to give satisfactory explanation; conviction and three-year sentence upheld.
|
22 October 1974 |
|
The appellant's fabricated robbery report and unexplained public-funds shortfall justified convictions; theft sentence confirmed.
* Criminal law – Giving false information to a public officer – s.122(b) Penal Code – fabricated robbery report intended to cause police action. * Criminal law – Theft by public servant – ss.265, 270 Penal Code – failure to account for public funds (shs.752); conviction justified. * Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act – three-year statutory minimum for stealing confirmed; concurrent reduction for secondary offence where appellant is first offender. * Compensation order – confirmed.
|
16 October 1974 |
|
Conviction for careless driving upheld on evidence; original 12‑month sentence reduced to six months for a first offender.
* Traffic law – Driving without due care and attention – entering a main road when other vehicles are close – sufficiency of evidence to convict.
* Appellate review – assessment of whether conviction was influenced by status of occupants in affected vehicle.
* Sentencing – mitigation for first offender; reduction of custodial sentence.
|
11 October 1974 |
| September 1974 |
|
|
Circumstantial evidence and incomplete forensic investigation failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – circumstantial evidence – burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt – similarity of clothing as evidence – forensic evidence and comparative blood testing – inadequate police investigation undermining prosecution’s case.
|
29 September 1974 |
|
Credible prosecution testimony and inconsistent defence evidence upheld conviction for theft; lenient sentence left undisturbed.
Criminal law – Theft (Penal Code s.265) – Proof of ownership/possession; Credibility assessment of prosecution and defence witnesses; Admissions in cross-examination; Appellate review of sentence leniency.
|
27 September 1974 |
|
Appeal against cattle-stealing convictions and minimum five-year sentences dismissed for insufficient basis to disturb trial findings.
Criminal law – Cattle theft – Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence (buried meat, identified skin, witness account) – Trial court’s credibility findings – Appeal dismissed; sentence under Minimum Sentences Act affirmed.
|
20 September 1974 |
|
Appeal dismissed: daylight eyewitness identification and surrounding facts supported conviction for theft from the person.
Criminal law – Theft from the person – sufficiency of evidence – eyewitness identification in daylight – reliability of ocular evidence – appeal dismissed.
|
20 September 1974 |
|
Appellant’s conviction for public-service theft quashed due to insufficient evidence amid missing or possibly forged documents.
Criminal law – theft by public servant – sufficiency of evidence – missing or destroyed accounting records – disputed payment voucher and cash cheque – burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
18 September 1974 |
|
Conviction for stealing by servant upheld; sentence reduced from two years to one year for parity.
* Criminal law – Stealing by servant (ss. 271 & 265 Penal Code) – sufficiency and credibility of eyewitness evidence – appellate restraint on findings of fact. * Sentencing – parity among co‑accused and effect of prior convictions – reduction of sentence for consistency.
|
13 September 1974 |
|
Appeal allowed where prosecution failed to prove driver knew brakes were faulty; convictions quashed.
Criminal law – Dangerous driving causing death – Element of driver’s knowledge of vehicle defect – Conflicting evidence on mechanical repairs and benefit of doubt.
|
11 September 1974 |
|
Conviction for stealing by agent upheld; sentence reduced from three years to nine months as excessive.
* Criminal law – Stealing by agent (s.273 Penal Code) – evaluation of eyewitness evidence and credibility of appellant’s denial. * Criminal procedure – Appeal – appellate review of sentence for excessiveness and mitigation for first offender and partial recovery of proceeds.
|
6 September 1974 |
|
Failure to renew third‑party insurance justified fine and mandatory 18‑month driving disqualification; appeal dismissed.
Motor vehicle insurance – driving without third-party insurance – sentence appeal – fine affirmed; mandatory disqualification from holding/obtaining driving permit upheld; alleged mitigating circumstances insufficient.
|
4 September 1974 |
|
Whether circumstantial evidence proved an exchange-control offence by arranging cross-border refund of Tanzanian currency.
* Exchange control – Section 7(1)(a) – making compensation deal with person resident in scheduled territories; * Circumstantial evidence – proof beyond reasonable hypothesis of innocence; * Evidence of intent and collusion – inconsistent explanations, documentary discrepancies; * Sentence – appropriateness of three-year imprisonment for exchange control breach.
|
4 September 1974 |
| August 1974 |
|
|
Post hoc identification without prior description is unreliable; reasonable innocent explanation warrants quashing an unsafe conviction.
Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – Post hoc identification by owner without prior description is weak; possession alone insufficient where a reasonable innocent explanation exists; conviction unsafe and quashed when prosecution fails to exclude innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
|
23 August 1974 |
|
Recent possession and inconsistent explanation upheld conviction for theft; three-year sentence not manifestly excessive.
Criminal law – Theft – Doctrine of recent possession – recent possession coupled with physical evidence and inconsistent explanation sustains conviction; Sentence – three years imprisonment – severe but not manifestly excessive.
|
23 August 1974 |
|
The applicant's unauthorised use of employer's deposit constituted fraudulent conversion and theft; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Stealing as a servant – Fraudulent conversion – Penal Code s.258(e) (using money with intent to use though may repay) – Evidence: informal receipt, failure to account, admissions/letter – Mandatory minimum sentence under Minimum Sentences Act.
|
21 August 1974 |
|
The appellants' defence of lawful commission was rejected; theft convictions for dismantling the vehicle upheld.
* Criminal law – Theft of motor vehicle – taking and removal to another location and dismantling – constitutes fraudulent taking under s.288(2)(d) – theft under s.265. * Evidence – credibility and inference – defence of lawful commission/entrapment rejected as inherently improbable. * Recovery of dismantled parts and missing registration plates as corroborative evidence. * Sentence – not excessive given nature and manner of offence.
|
9 August 1974 |
|
Appellate court upheld careless driving conviction based on eyewitness evidence and a sketch plan showing vehicle crossed into oncoming traffic.
* Road Traffic – careless driving – sufficiency of evidence – eyewitness testimony of zigzagging and sketch plan drawn with appellant’s approval supporting finding of negligence.* Evidence – sketch plan admissibility and probative value where prepared in presence and with approval of accused.* Appellate review – affirmation of trial court findings where factual evidence is credible and unchallenged.
|
2 August 1974 |
| July 1974 |
|
|
Convictions based on identification by an injured, mentally impaired witness using a flashlight were unsafe and quashed.
Identification evidence — reliability of identification by an injured, mentally affected witness using a flashlight; single-witness identification and need for corroboration; misdescription of property in charge particulars; requirement for clear sentencing orders.
|
25 July 1974 |
|
Appeal dismissed; evidence proved appellant gave an inducement to an agent and conviction and sentence are upheld.
* Criminal law – Corruption – Corrupt transaction with agent – Whether inducement given in connection with job application constituted a bribe under s.3(2) and (3) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1971. * Evidence – Credibility and corroboration – defendant’s conduct (attempt to grab seized money) as corroborative of guilt. * Evidence – Handwriting discrepancies – expert evidence not determinative where overall evidence proves offence beyond reasonable doubt.
|
19 July 1974 |
|
Offence committed before new Traffic Act; sentence must follow law in force at time of offence, substituted and excess refunded.
Criminal law — Sentencing — Temporal application of statute — Road Traffic Act 1973 not applicable to offences committed before commencement; appellate substitution of sentence and refund of excess fine.
|
19 July 1974 |
|
Conviction for obtaining money by false pretences substituted with theft where defendant exploited a payroll error.
Criminal law – Obtaining money by false pretences – Elements of false pretences absent where no false representation induced payment – Administrative error – Appropriation constituting theft under section 265.
|
19 July 1974 |
|
Recent possession and reliable identification of stolen items upheld convictions for receiving; appeals dismissed.
* Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – Application of the doctrine of recent possession – Identification of stolen articles by distinctive marks and keys – Validity of marks/initials as ownership evidence; * Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act, 1972 – three-year minimum custodial sentence upheld.
|
17 July 1974 |