Director of Public Prosecutions vs Ediphines Jackson Muhenga (Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 115 (25 February 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MUSOMA fCORAM: NDIKA, J.A.. FIKIRINI, J.A, And ISMAIL J.A.J CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2024 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS..................................... APPELLANT VERSUS EDIPHINES JACKSON MUHENGA ........................................... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment of the Resident Magistrate's Court of Musoma, at Musoma-Extended Jurisdiction) (Tarimo, PRM,ExtJuri$) dated the 25th day of September, 2023 in Criminal Sessions Case No. 5 of 2022 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18th & 25th February, 2026. FIKIRINI, J.A.: Parenting without success can feel like walking through a fog, where every effort vanishes without direction, leaving frustration and doubt behind. The love and intention are present, yet the outcomes fail to match the hopes, creating a cycle of exhaustion and self-questioning. This analogy resonates with the present case, where the respondent, Ediphines Jackson Muhenga, despite his privileged family background, found himself charged with murder contrary to sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16.

The particulars of the offence alleged that on 12th June 2020, at Pentekoste Street within Tarime District in Mara Region, the respondent murdered his stepmother, Moshi Jackson Muhenga. The respondent pleaded not guilty. The prosecution's evidence established that the deceased was at her shop on the fateful day. PW3, a neighbouring shopkeeper, testified that at around 1:00 p.m. she heard screams for help. Upon rushing to the scene, she found the deceased lying on the ground, bleeding from the head, while the respondent stood nearby holding a stone and appearing angry. He fled upon seeing PW3. PW3 admitted she did not witness the actual assault and denied knowledge of the respondent's mental condition. PW4 similarly testified that he had never doubted the respondents mental status. Later that evening, at about 6:00 p.m., PW4 apprehended the respondent near Songambele "A" riverside and handed him over to Bomani Police Station. PW1, the investigator, interviewed the respondent, who denied the allegations. On 13th June, 2020, PW1 visited the crime scene, prepared a sketch map, and recorded witness statements. PW2, Dr. Dorotha Ernest, conducted the post-mortem examination and concluded that death was caused by acute head injury

resulting from a deep cut wound and hematoma on the neck. The post mortem report was admitted as exhibit PI. When called upon to make his defence, the respondent raised the plea of insanity. He admitted killing the deceased but claimed he acted unintentionally, as his mind was not sound at the time. He narrated his history of mental illness, beginning in 2016 when he dropped out of Tumaini University after abusing cannabis. His parents sought treatment for him at Musoma Regional Hospital's psychiatric department. Though he initially recovered, by 2019 he relapsed into drug use, prompting further treatment at a sober house in Mwanza and later at Bugando Hospital. He produced medical evidence, including a report and appointment card (exhibits D2 and D3), showing treatment for substance-induced psychosis and depression. His testimony was corroborated by DW2 and DW3, who confirmed his struggles with narcotic drugs and treatment at Pilimisana Foundation. DW4 clarified exhibit D3, confirming that the respondent suffered from substance-induced psychosis and depression, treated with antipsychotic medication and counselling. The trial magistrate with extended jurisdiction rejected the defence of insanity, but assumed instead that the respondent had raised

intoxication as a defence. On that basis, the court concluded that the respondent killed the deceased unintentionally, convicted him of a lesser offence, and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. Upset by both the conviction and sentence, the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) appealed to the Court on the following grounds:-

1. That, the trial Resident's Magistrate with extended jurisdiction erred in law and fact by convicting and sentencing the respondent for lesser offence o f manslaughter while the evidence adduced proved offence o f Murder.
2. That, the trial Resident's Magistrate with extended jurisdiction erred in law and fact by finding the respondent was insane while the evidence shows that at the time o f committing the offence the respondent was sane. At the hearing of the appeal, Ms. Monica Alex Hokororo, learned Principal State Attorney, together with Mr. Nico Malekela and Ms. Happiness Machage, learned State Attorneys, appeared ready to argue for the appeal on behalf of the appellant. On the contrary, Mr. Magwayega, learned counsel appeared for the respondent, who was absent from Court. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Magwayega, raised a preliminary issue concerning the legality of the transfer order found on page 15 of the record dated 1s t August, 2023, by the Judge Incharge to

Honourable A. V. Tarimo, PRM, Ext. Juris who conducted the trial after Honourable F. L. Moshi, PRM, Ext. Juris, who conducted plea taking and preliminary hearing, as indicated on page 16 of the same record. In his view, this inconsistency rendered the proceedings a nullity. Mr. Malekela, appearing for the appellant, initially contended that the defect did not materially affect the subsequent proceedings. Upon reconsideration, however, he revised his stance and conceded that Honourable Moshi, PRM, Ext. Juris, lacked authority to hear the matter since no transfer order had been issued. The learned State Attorney likewise acknowledged that the proceedings were a nullity. Forging ahead, Mr. Malekela urged the Court to order retrial, relying on the medical report which had found the respondent "sane," notwithstanding his plea of insanity during defence. It is evident that the trial conducted by Honourable Tarimo, PRM, Ext. Juris, was invalid, as it proceeded without jurisdiction following the earlier involvement of Honourable Moshi, PRM, Ext. Juris, who had taken the respondent's plea and conducted the preliminary hearing. No transfer order was ever issued to justify the change. The absence of such authorization fatally undermines the integrity of the proceedings.

Accordingly, the trial and the resultant judgment are a nullity beyond question. In Abubakari Said Juma @ Jumanne Abdallah @ J4 @ Babu v. Republic [2025] TZCA 794, the Court reiterated that once a case is transferred to a magistrate with extended jurisdiction, it must continue before that magistrate from plea to conclusion unless a rational reason for re-transfer is recorded. The decision echoed what was held before in Michael Paul Mwaliko v. R, [2018] TZCA 799, where Court underscored that where a partly heard matter is reassigned, the reason for the failure of the first magistrate to complete the trial must be recorded. Failure to do so leads to chaos in the administration of justice, as files could be picked up arbitrarily to the detriment of justice. Flowing from the above explanation, there is no justified reason why the proceedings should not be nullified. Accordingly, in terms of section 6 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, nullify the entire proceedings, quash conviction, and set aside the sentence. On what should be the appropriate course to take, this has really tasked our minds, whether we should order retrial as urged by the appellant or not. Pondering on the circumstances of this case and guided by our previous decisions in Joseph Ngadupa Akilimbaya & 6

Another v. R, [2024] TZCA 39 and Kelvin Jonas Kimbila v. R [2024] TZCA 521, we find it prudent to allow the appeal and leave it to the discretion of the DPP to decide whether to initiate fresh proceedings or not. This option is subject to the condition that the DPP's decision must be made within 18 months from the date of this judgment. Finally, we allow the appeal and as alluded above leave retrial or not in the wisdom of the DPP with the direction given. We so order. DATED at MUSOMA this 25th day of February, 2026. G. A. M. NDIKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL P. S. FIKIRINI JUSTICE OF APPEAL M. K. ISMAIL JUSTICE OF APPEAL The Judgment delivered this 25th day of February, 2026 in the presence of Jonas Kivuyo, learned State Attorney for the appellant and respondent absent and Mr. Shabani Kanyai, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original.