Edward Ezekiel Sheyo vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 132 (25 February 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA fCORAM: MWANPAMBO. J.A.. MWAMPASHI. J.A. And MLACHA. J.A/1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2023 EDWARD EZEKIEL SHEYO.......................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC........................................................................ RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha) (Gwae, J.) dated the 10th day of February, 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2022 REASONS FOR DECISION 12th & . 25th February, 2026 MWANPAMBO. J.A.: On 12 February 2026, the Court allowed the appellant's appeal, quashed conviction and set aside sentences resulting into his immediate release from custody if not lawfully held therein for any other cause. We reserved our decision which we now give in this judgment The appellant stood charged before the Resident Magistrate's Court of Arusha on three counts of unlawful possession of Government trophy involving pieces of meat of three different animals that is, gerenuk, grant gazelle and wild hare to which he pleaded not guilty. The particulars in the charge alleged that, on 15 March 2020, at Lotegelie area within Longido District and Region of Arusha, the appellant was found in unlawful possession of two heads and meat of generuk equivalent to two killed generuk valued at USD 2,500 each equivalent to TZS 11,500,000.00 for both animals (1st count); unlawful possession of two heads and meat of grant gazelle valued at USD 450 each with a total value of USD 900 equivalent to TZS 2,070,000.00 (2n d count) and; unlawful possession of hare meat equivalent to one killed hare valued at USD 75 equivalent to TZS 175,500.00 (3rd count), the property of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania without a permit from the Director of Wildlife. The prosecution sought to prove its case through four witnesses who produced six exhibits including inventory form (exhibit P6) in lieu of the parts of the animals and pieces of the meat allegedly found in the appellant's possession following an order for the disposal of the perishable meat particulars of which were set out in exhibit P6 pursuant to section 101 (1), (2) and (3) and 106 (3) of the Wildlife Conservation Act ("the WCA"). Satisfied that the evidence led by the prosecution proved the case on the required standard, the trial court found the appellant guilty as charged and convicted him followed by custodial sentences of 20 years in each count ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court (Gwae, J.) sitting at Arusha in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2022. That appeal was upon seven grounds of complaints on procedural aspects and those faulting the trial court for grounding conviction on weak evidence which did not prove the case on the required standard; proof beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the High Court concurred with the trial court's finding on the guilt of the appellant and sustained the convictions and sentences. Against that decision, the appellant, appealed to this Court on seven grounds of complaint in his memorandum of appeal lodged on 21 September 2023. Ahead of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant lodged a document titled: " Ufafanuzi wa Sababu za Rufaa ,"literally translated as "Elaboration on the grounds of appeal" which we took it as equivalent to a written statement of arguments in support of the appeal in pursuance of rule 74 (1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules). At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant appeared in person, unrepresented. Despite the fact that, as a lay person he had nothing to add to the contents in his written arguments, he was in a serious medical condition of which the Court was informed that was a result of paralysis which affected his ability to speak. 3 It is pertinent that, in his written arguments, the appellant sought to address the Court on the 3rd ground on the shortcomings in the order for disposal of the perishable exhibit and invited the Court to expunge exhibit P6; inventory form for being irregularly procured for several reasons, in particular, denial of his right to participate in the proceedings before the Magistrate before making the disposal order. The appellant reinforced his argument with the Court's decision in Mohamed Juma @ Mpakama v. Republic, [2019] 1 T.L.R. 514 to argue that an inventory form from an illegally procured order for disposal of a perishable item is evidentiary worthless. That was notwithstanding the fact that, the 3rd ground in the memorandum of appeal faulted the first appellate court for not finding that the charge was neither signed nor stamped by the trial magistrate following the appellant's arraignment on 2 April 2020. On the adversary side, Ms. Janeth Sekule and Mr. James Pallangyo, both learned Senior State Attorneys appeared to represent the respondent Republic supporting the appeal on the 6th ground faulting the first appellate court for not finding that the case against the appellant was not proved. Addressing the Court, Ms. Sekule drew our attention to the evidence of PW4 who tendered exhibit P6 in lieu of the Government trophy subject of the charge. The learned Senior State Attorney was candid that, whereas section 101 (1) and (2) of the WCA allows the trial court to receive inventory of the perishable exhibit disposed of pursuant to an order of a court in that behalf as sufficient evidence, the procedure for the disposal of the parts of animals and meat allegedly found in the appellant's possession was not followed rendering the inventory form (exhibit P6) meant to prove the charge evidentiary worthless. She reinforced her argument with the Court's decision in Buluka Leken Ole Ndidai & Another v. Republic [2024] 7ZCA 116 reiterating the position taken in its earlier decision in Mohamed Juma @ Mpakama (supra) on what it takes for an inventory form prepared in pursuance of section 101 of the WCA to be sufficient evidence proving unlawful possession of Government trophy in lieu of the physical item. Elaborating, counsel argued that, one of the crucial elements the trial court has to consider before acting on the inventory form is, according the accused person right not only to be present in the proceedings for disposal order of a perishable trophy but also opportunity to be heard in such proceedings. Ms. Sekule argued that, although exhibit P6 appearing at page 53 of the record of appeal shows that the appellant signed it through thumbprint, there is no indication that he was accorded opportunity to make any comment during the proceedings before the Primary Court Magistrate of Arusha on 16 March 2020 when an order for disposal was made. In the circumstances, she was steadfast that, since the disposal order expressed in exhibit P6 was procured illegally, it could not have been relied upon as sufficient evidence to prove the charge. Consequently, she invited the Court to expunge it from the record and once that is done, there will be no other evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. She accordingly prayed for an order quashing the appellant's convictions and setting aside the sentences meted out against him which will result in his acquittal. As alluded to earlier on, we agreed with the arguments in favour of supporting the appeal upon being convinced that they were tenable mindful of the provisions of section 101(1) and (2) of the WCA which provides: 101(1) The Court shall, on Its own motion or upon application made by the prosecution in that behalf (a) prior to commencement o f proceedings, order that (i) any animat or trophy which is subject to speedy decay; or ( ii) any weapon , vehicle, vessel or other article which is subject o f destruction or 6 depreciation, and is intended to be used as evidence, be disposed o f by the Director; or (b) a t any stage o f proceedings, order that (i) any anim ai or trophy which is subject o f speedy decay; or (ii) any weapon, vehicle, vessel or other article which is subject to destruction or depreciation, which has been tendered or put in evidence before it, be disposed o f by the Director. (2) The order o f disposal under this section shall be sufficient proof o f the m atter in dispute before any court during tria l It is clear from the above that an order for the disposal is sufficient proof of the matter in dispute before the court during trial. However, as we said in Buluka Leken Ole Ndidai's case, to be sufficient proof of any dispute in the matter, in this case, unlawful possession of Government trophy, several conditions have to be met, in particular, right to be heard by the suspect before the court invited to make a disposal order of a perishable exhibit. It is significant that, in Mosi s/o Chacha @ Iranga & Another v. Republic [2021] TZCA 598 to which reference was made in Buluka Leken Ole Ndidai (supra), it is not enough for the suspect to be present during the proceedings before a 7 magistrate. It is mandatory that he must be afforded right to be heard before the disposal order is made. Admittedly there is no indication that the appellant was present before the Magistrate on 16 March 2020 but the fact that it is shown in exhibit P6 that he signed the inventory by way of a thumbprint must be taken to be proof of his presence. All the same, since there is no indication that he was afforded a right to be heard before the disposal order was given, presence alone was not enough and thus, it could not have been relied upon by the trial court and the first appellate court as sufficient proof of unlawful possession of Government trophy in pursuance of section 101 (2) of the WCA. We say so because we are satisfied that, in its wisdom, in enacting section 102 (2) of the WCA, the legislature did not intend to make the inventory as conclusive proof, rather sufficient proof subject to it being properly procured. In view of the shortcomings pointed out above, exhibit P6 lacked evidential value from which no findings of guilt could have been made followed by convictions and sentences on the charged offence. Consequently, consistent with the position we have taken in our previous decisions, we expunge exhibit P6 from the record for being illegally procured. After expunging exhibit P6, there will be no. other evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. It is for this reason 8 we set aside the findings of guilt, quashed convictions and set aside the sentences imposed against the appellant resulting into his acquittal and immediate release from custody unless lawfully held therein. DATED at ARUSHA this 23rdday of February, 2026. L. J. S. MWANDAMBO JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. M. MWAMPASHI JUSTICE OF APPEAL L. M. MLACHA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Reasons for Decision delivered this 25th day of February, 2026 in the presence of Ms. Janeth Sekule, learned Senior State Attorney for the Respondent/Republic and Mr. Fahmi Karemwa, Court clerk, in the absence of the Appellant, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. R. W. CHAUNGU DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 9