Paulo Edward Mwanyonga @ Baba Bupe vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 182 (27 February 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA ( CORAM: KEREFU. J.A., KAIRO, J.A. And NANGELA. J.A.^ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 913 OF 2023 PAULO EDWARD MWANYONGA @ BABA BU PE ......................... APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ..................................................................... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Mbeya) (Nonqwa, J.) dated the 09th day of October, 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2023 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19th & 27th February, 2026 NANGELA, J.A:. The appellant, PAULO EDWARD MWANYONGA @ BABA BUPE, was convicted of own plea of guilty to the offence of rape contrary to sections 130 (1) (2) (e) and 131 (1) of the Penal Code, [Cap. 16 R.E. 2022], (the Penal Code). The particulars of the offence were to the effect that, on an unknown date and time of January, 2023 and on 27/03/2023, at Lukata Village, within Rugwe District in Mbeya Region, he unlawfully had sexual intercourse with "X", a girl aged 14 years old. According to the record of appeal, the appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge. Consequently, upon that plea, the trial court i

conducted a preliminary inquiry during which the facts, as prepared by the prosecution, were read over and explained to the appellant. Allegedly, he unequivocally admitted those facts. A duly completed PF3 and the victim's birth certificate were thereafter tendered in evidence and admitted as exhibits PI and P2, respectively. On the strength of the alleged appellant's own plea of guilty and the admitted facts, the learned trial magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to thirty (30) years' imprisonment. Aggrieved by both conviction and sentence, the appellant lodged an appeal before the High Court. He contended that, he had been improperly convicted on the basis of a single plea; that the charge was defective; and that, the conviction was influenced by emotion rather than evidence. Upon hearing the appeal, the High Court, sitting as the first appellate court, dismissed it, in its entirety. Undeterred, the appellant has now appealed to this Court, advancing two grounds of appeal, which may conveniently be reframed as follows:

1. That, the first appellate court erred in law in dismissing the appellant's appeal without properly evaluating and analysing the grounds advanced in his petition o f appeal.

2. That, the first appellate court further erred in law in upholding the conviction notwithstanding that the appellant's plea was equivocal. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant appeared in person. The respondent Republic was represented by Ms. Mwajabu Tengeneza, Principal State Attorney, assisted by Ms. Ellen Masululi and Ms. Veronica Mtafya, learned Senior State Attorneys. When invited to address the Court, the appellant elected to have the respondent Republic respond to the grounds of appeal in the first instance, while reserving his right of reply, if necessary. In that regard, Ms. Tengeneza informed the Court that, Ms. Masululi was to address the Court on behalf of the respondent Republic. In her succinct submissions, Ms. Masululi opposed the appeal and supported both the conviction and sentence. With respect to the first ground of appeal, she contended that, the first appellate court duly considered and determined all the grounds raised by the appellant. She invited the Court to peruse pages 23 to 28 of the record of appeal, which, in her submission, clearly demonstrate that, the issues were comprehensively addressed. Consequently, she urged the Court to find that, the first ground is devoid of merit and liable to dismissal. 3

As regards the second ground, Ms. Masululi refuted the appellant's contention that, his plea was incomplete or that he did not understand the charge, rendering it equivocal. She maintained that, the record, unequivocally establishes the contrary. Referring to page 3 of the record of appeal, she submitted that, the charge was properly framed, read over and explained to the appellant, who was thereafter, called upon to plead. Further, relying on pages 4 and 5 of the record of appeal, she argued that, the facts underpinning the charge were read and explained to the appellant, and that he admitted them without reservation. Placing reliance on section 245 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap. 20 R.E. 2023] (the CPA), she submitted that, the plea was, in law, unequivocal. In support of that proposition, she cited the decision of this Court in Richard s/o Lionga @ Simageni v. Republic [2021] TZCA 671 (11 November 2021- TANZLII). In his brief reply, the appellant asserted that, the case against him was fabricated. He contended that, the age of the victim was not established; that, there were material contradictions regarding the date and time of the alleged offence; and, that, no birth certificate was tendered in evidence. On that basis, he urged the Court to allow the

appeal, quash the conviction, set aside the sentence, and order his release from prison. We have carefully examined the record of appeal. We think there are only two issues that need to be looked at; one is whether the first appellate court failed to analyse the appellant's grounds of appeal and, two, whether the appellant's plea was equivocal. Concerning the first issue, we are in agreement with Ms. Masululi that it lacks merit. We are fortified by the fact that, looking at pages 12 of the record of appeal, it is clear that the appellant raised five grounds of appeal before the first appellate court. In addressing such grounds, following a viva voce hearing, the first appellate court commenced its assessment of the appeal from pages 23 to 28 of the record of appeal, where all grounds raised by the appellant were considered, starting with ground two and three, which were disposed of conjointly at pages 23 to 27 of the same record, and grounds one, four and five, which were also conjointly disposed of as pages 27 to 28 of the same record indicates. It follows; therefore, the appellant's first ground of appeal lacks merit and is liable for dismissal as we hereby do.

Concerning the second Issue, which addresses the second ground of appeal, the same cannot hold. In essence, a court may rightly convict on a properly entered plea of guilty, provided that the accused person understood the charge laid before him, in terms of all ingredients constituting the offence, and that, all the brief facts constituting the offence, as might have been read and explained to him in the language he understands, were also fully admitted. See Salehe Mohamed v. R [1971] H.C.D No.76, citing the decision in Kato v. R. [1971] E.A. 542. However, for a plea of guilty to be considered as unequivocal for purposes of conviction, it must pass the test set by the Court in Richard s/o Lionga @ Simageni (supra). In that decision, the Court, relying on its previous decision in Michael Adrian Chaki v. Republic [2021] TZCA 454 (9 September 2021-TANZLII), stated that: " ... there cannot be an unequivocal plea on which a valid conviction may be founded unless these conditions are conjunctively met: -

1. The appellant must be arraigned on a proper charge. That is to say, the offence section and the particulars thereof must be properly framed and must explicitly disclose the offence known to law.

2. The court must satisfy itself without any doubt and must be dear in its mind, that an accused fully comprehends what he is actually faced with, otherwise injustice may result.

3. When the accused is called upon to plead to the charge, the charge is stated and fully explained to him before he is asked to state whether he admits or denies each and every particular ingredient o f the offence. This is in terms o f section 228 (1) of the CPA.

4. The facts adduced after recording a plea of guilty should disclose and establish all the elements o f the offence charged.

5. The accused must be asked to plead and must actually plead guilty to each and every ingredient o f the offence charged and the same must be properly recorded and must be dear (see Akbaraii Damji vs R. 2 T.L.R 137 cited by the Court in Thuway Akoonay vs Republic [1987] T.L.R. 92);

6. Before a conviction on a piea of guilty is entered, the court must satisfy itself without any doubt that the facts adduced disclose or establish ail the elements of the offence charged". 7

The above stated factors have been considered by the Court in a number of decisions, having affirmed the decision of the High Court in Laurent Mpinga v. Republic [1983] TLR 166. Other decisions of the Court include Karlos Punda v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2005 (unreported), Chacha Makonge @ Mwansi v. Republic [2024] TZCA 587 (18 July 2024-TANZLII), among others. From the above set out criteria, as the Court rightly pointed out in Richard s/o Lionga @ Simageni v. Republic (supra), two things hold out as constituents of an unequivocal plea: one, that, the accused must plead guilty to the charge as indicated at criterial 1, 2, 3 and 5, and, two, he must plead guilty to the facts constituting the offence charged as per criteria 4 and 6. We shall apply these to the instant appeal to see if the appellant's claim regarding his plea hold water. The charge, which was read over and explained to the appellant, is found at page 1 of the record of appeal. It reads: " OFFENCE: SECTION AND LAW: - Rape c/s 130 (1) (2) (e) and 131 (1) of the Pena / Code, [Cap 16, Vo/.l R.E 2022]. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE: - That, PAULO s/o EDWARD MWANYONGA @ BABA BUPE charged on unknown date and time day January 2023, and 8

27th day o f March ; 2023 at Lukata Village within Rungwe District in Mbeya Region, unlawfully did have sexual intercourse with one ABC a girl aged 14 years old". Page 3 of the same record indicates what transpired before the trial court on the first day of the appellant's arraignment. The record of appeal reads as follows: "PP. I pray to read the charge." "COURT: Prayer granted. The charge is read over and fully explained to the accused person who is asked to plead thereto." Plea of the Accused: "7f is true'. Ni kweli niiikuwa nikifanya mapenzi na huyo binti." (Meaning: It is true, I was having sexuai intercourse with that girl)". Looking at the above noted arraignment process and the appellant's own plea of guilty, we find it difficult to accept his complaint that his plea was equivocal. The reason for that is clear. His response reflects the contents of the charge which include an admission of having sexual intercourse with the victim. But pages 4 and 5 of the record of appeal, does further strengthen the reason why we do not accept the appellant's complaint. On those pages, the prosecutor narrated the brief facts of the 9

case. These disclosed his name, the fact that he was at Lukata Village between January, 2023 and 27/03/2023, that, in between January, 2021 and 27/03/2021 he had sexual intercourse with the victim, a girl of 14 years old, that, the matter was reported and he was arrested, that, the victim was medically examined, a PF3 was issued and, that, a birth certificate was issued for admission in court. When asked about all such facts, he admitted all of them as correct and that, indeed, he had sexual intercourse with the victim the day he was arrested. He also never objected to the admission of the said exhibits. The totality of all that lead to one conclusion: his plea was unequivocal. That, having been said, we are mindful of what section 381 (1) of the CPA provides. That provision states that: (1) An appeal shall not be allowed in the case of any accused person who has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea by a subordinate court except as to the extent or legality of the sentence. Since the appellant is only contesting the legality of his plea and not of the sentence which we find was correctly meted out on him, and given that his plea was unequivocal, his second ground of appeal cannot stand. The same is found to be devoid of merit and we dismiss it. 10

In the upshot of all that, the appellant's appeal is devoid of merits. We therefore dismiss it in its entirety. DATED at MBEYA this 27th day of February, 2026. R. J. KEREFU JUSTICE OF APPEAL L. G. KAIRO JUSTICE OF APPEAL D. J. NANGELA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgement delivered this 27th day of February, 2026 in the presence of the Appellant in person, Ms. Mwajabu Tengeneza, learned Principal State Attorney for the respondent/Republic via virtual court and Ms. Christina Mwanandenje, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of W. A. HAMZA DEPUTY REGISTRAR the original O f At COURT OF APPEAL li