africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • All jurisdictions →

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[1973] TZHC 181Tanzania

Mrisho Kabonga and Another vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 1972; High Court Criminal Appeals No. 210 of 1920) [1973] TZHC 181 (13 April 1973)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

I I I IN THT HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MA.NZA. APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL A'pEALS NOS. 210 & 347 OF 192 0 (Original Criminal Case No. 825 of 1971 of the District Court of Kigoma District at Kigoma—Before C.G.M -tenga Esq; - R. Magistrate). MRISHO KABONGA ,. ..,. . .... ...... APP]iLLANTS ABRAHAM HARRISON MAZIA I (Original Accused) var sus THE REPUBLIC, .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . • . . • o a . . e ej.,.. .RESPONDWT (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: Being in possession of prooerr suspected to have been stolen c/s 312 of the Penal Code Cap, 16 Vol.1 of the Laws. J U D G M E N T. Patel, J. Appellants were convicted of 'Being in possession of property suspected to have bean Stolen' and are.sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. Both now appeal against conviction and sentence. The goods involved were secondhand clothing which the appellant had with them when they were stopped by a Police Constable at Kigoma railway station. Both said they bought taem in the market and were going home. Their explanation as to possession of the said clothing was not accented by trial magistrate who then proceeded to convict them, Learned State Attorney said the explanation given by the appellants was reasonable and they discharged their burden of proof. He said Republic did not support conviction. I have gone through the record carefully and in my view Learned State Attorney is quite correct. Appellants did after reasonable explanation as to how they came to possess secondhand clothes and learned trial magistrate was wrong in not holding this a reasonable explanation, For these reasons these appeals succeed. Conviction on both appellants is quashed and the sentences are setasido. It is ordered that the appellants be set free forthwith unless otherwise legally held. ........ Fatal) 13th April, 1973, JUDGE. Delivered in Court this 18ti day of April,. 1973 in presence of the State Attorney Mr. Meela. .,\ .. • •\ \ Mwanza. J. B. Ptel). 13th April, 1 973- UDG L. J

Discussion