Lameck Samson vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 1098 (13 October 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA (CORAM: KOROSSO. J.A.. KENTE. J.A.. And KHAMIS, J.A/) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2023 LAMECK SAMSON......................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.........................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza) f Mnvukwa, J.l dated the 6th day of March, 2023 in Criminal Session No. 144 of 2019 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 29th September & 13* October, 2025 KHAMIS, 3.A.: This is a first appeal against the conviction and sentence meted out to Lameck Samson, the appellant, for the offence of murder contrary to sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, Cap 16, R.E 2002 (now R.E 2023). In terms of rule 36 (1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules) it is the duty of this Court to re-appraise the evidence adduced before the trial court and draw inferences of fact with a view of determining whether the trial court's conviction'and sentence should .be affirmed or overturned. i

The particulars of the offence were that around 21.00 hours on 5th day of May, 2018 at Rumasa Village, Chato District, Geita Region, the appellant and one Reuben Makanika who is not a party to this appeal, murdered Dotto s/o Ntururu. When the information was read over to them, the appellant and Reuben Makanika entered a plea of not guilty hence a full trial. The prosecution called six witnesses and defence had two. At the conclusion of trial, Reuben Makanika was acquitted. Meanwhile, the appellant was convicted as charged and sentenced to a mandatory death penalty. The basis for the appellant's conviction is succinctly stated as follows: On 3rd day of May, 2018 at around 6:00 hours, the deceased and the appellant visited the house of Washa Kanila (PW5) in Lumasa Village, Kasaka ward, Chato District, Geita Region. They briefed him on their intention to conclude an oral agreement for equal sharing of the charcoal under process in the farm of the deceased. Leading the talk, the deceased said he found charcoal burnt in his furnace without his knowledge. Upon follow up, he realised it was the appellant who burnt the charcoal without his permission. However, the two mutually agreed to share the charcoal upon being exhumed. To cement the deal, they made him a witness considering he was an uncle to the deceased and a neighbour of the appellant.

At about 20:00 hours on 5th day of May, 2018 PW5 received a telephone call from Salome, wife of the deceased, complaining of her husband's missing. Two hours later, Salome called again insisting that her husband was not yet home since he left at 5:00 hours. According to her, he left on a bicycle to the shamba and carried a hand hoe and a sack. Acting on the report, PW5 and his young brother, Njile, went to the deceased's farm. They arrived at the farm at around 23:00 hours. With the aid of torchlight, they found footsteps and some marks on the ground. In their understanding, the marks suggested that a dead body was dragged from one point of the farm to another: The two brothers followed the footsteps and the marks until they found the body hidden in the bush with injuries on the head. A report was immediately made to relatives and village leaders who started the investigations. Recalling the agreement to share the charcoal, PW5 suspected the appellant to be the murderer and therefore, he informed one Mr. Budodi, the Commander of Sungusungu in the village. At around 00:00 hours that night, Budodi arrested the appellant at his residence and ferried him to Buseresere Police Station where he was put under custody.

At the police station, the appellant was received by G 206 D/CPL Matete (PW6). Upon questioning by Inspector Witibu, the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), the appellant allegedly confessed to conspire with James Mathias and one Gegela to kill the deceased. The appellant allegedly led PW6, Inspector Witibu (the OCS) and Coplo Amos (PW2) to the house of James Mathias and Gegela. Whereas Gegela remained at large, police managed to arrest "James Mathias" who was taken to the police station for interrogation. In the morning hours of 6th May, 2018 a team of policemen led by Inspector Witibu visited the scene of crime. Others were G 205 CPL Amos (PW2) ahd F2513 D/SGT Nimludi (PW3). Dr. Halifa Mshana Kimomwe (PW1), a medical doctor and the appellant were also in attendance as part of the police team. At the scene, Washa Kanila (PW5) and other villagers were found standing guard over the dead body. PW1 conducted an autopsy on the deceased's body which revealed the cause of death as head injury and acute haemorrhage due to trauma. The body was found in supine position with multiple injuries on the head which caused fracture of the skull. The medical doctor signed the post mortem report dated 6th May, 2018 produced in evidence as exhibit PI.

PW2 drew a sketch map of the scene of crime with the assistance of Salome and PW5. The sketch map was drawn at 8:00 hours and admitted in evidence as exhibit P2. After the preliminary investigation at the scene of crime the body was handed over to the villagers for burial while the appellant was taken back into custody. On questioning, "James Mathias" distanced himself from' the accusation and maintained that, he was actually Reuben Makanika and not otherwise. PW3 recorded his cautioned statement in which he denied to commit the offence. Meanwhile, PW6 recorded the appellant's cautioned statement (exhibit P3) confessing to kill the deceased. On 7th May, 2018 a policeman escorted the appellant at the Buseresere Primary Court where Ernest Mbalamwezi (PW4), a Primary Court Magistrate and Justice of Peace, recorded his extra judicial statement. The statement was however not admitted for contravening the Chief Justice Guide for the Justices of the Peace (the GGJP). At the close of the prosecution's case, the trial court found the prosecution established a prinria facie case against the appellant and Reuben Makanika. When placed on defence, the appellant (DW1) and Reuben Makanika (DW2) denied the accusations levelled by the prosecution. 5

The appellant gave sworn evidence and stated that, he was arrested by Budodi during night hours of 5th May, 2018 and taken to the police station where he was put under custody. He denied ever seeing the deceased on the date of the incident and recording the cautioned statement (exhibit P3). According to him exhibit P3 was fabricated and he was coerced into signing it. The trial court having considered the evidence by the prosecution and the defence, was satisfied that it piaced the appellant at the scene of crime and linked him to the killing of the deceased. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced as stated before. the appellant was aggrieved by the conviction and sentence and filed a notice of appeal on 31st March, 2023. He also filed a memorandum of appeal anchored on five grounds which'faulted the trial Judge for: one, failure to find that the cautioned statement (exhibit P3) was recorded out of time contrary to sections 50 and 51 of the Criminal Procedure Act (the CPA); two, misapplication of the principle of oral confession leading to discovery of the body of the deceased; three, failure to consider that the circumstantial evidence relied upon to enter a conviction was not watertight; four, failure to find that the sketch map of the scene of crime (exhibit P2) was wrongly admitted and contradictory; five, failure to

consider that the case was poorly investigated; and six, failure to consider that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the date set for hearing of this appeal, the appellant was present in person and represented by Mr. Emmanuel John, learned advocate. On the other hand, Mr. Robert Magige, learned Senior State Attorney, appeared for the respondent Republic. At the outset, Mr. John abandoned the fourth, fifth and sixth grounds of appeal. He retained the first, second and third grounds which were addressed seriatim. On the first ground of appeal, the learned counsel contended that, U ' *1 f ' * , J 1 the cautioned statement (exhibit P3) was improperly admitted and acted upon in sheer disregard of the mandatory legal requirements. That, the prosecution evidence did not establish the precise time during which the appellant was arrested hence it was difficult to rule out whether the same was recorded in time or contrary to section 50 and 51 of the CPA. He submitted that, on account of such uncertainty, the repudiated cautioned statement ought to be disregarded. Further, the learned counsel faulted the trial Judge for embracing the repudiated statement without warning herself of the dangers of relying on it in the absence of corroboration. He referred us to page 195 and 196 of

the record where the Judge reproduced the principle propounded in the case of Bombo Tomola v. Republic [1980] TLR 254. He expounded that, a mere reproduction of the legal principle was not enough if the principle was not actually applied in the decision. He asserted that, had the learned Judge considered the stated principle, she would have found that exhibit P3 was neither corroborated nor true in its contents. To cement the assertion, he said the alleged confession showed the appellant conspired with Jam6s Mathias to kill the deceased. As it turned out, James Mathias was found to be a fictitious name leading to the acquittal of Reuben Makanika since there was no evidence to link the two names as one and the same.-. Addressing the second ground of appeal, Mr. John contended that, the principle of oral confession that leads to the discovery of a body was wrongly applied to found a conviction against the appellant. He asserted that, the oral confession could be admissible if it led to the discovery of the body.- He charged th^t, the facts of this case did not favour the application of that principle allegedly because the appellant neither made the oral confession nor led the police to discovery of the body of the deceased. The appellant's counsel argued that, PW5 had discovered the body a day before the appellant was taken to the crime scene which contradicts

the prosecution's theory that, the body was found by the police after the appellant's oral confession. He referred us at page 78 of the record where on examination, PW5 testified that: "...I went to the deceased's shamba with m y young brother called Njife. We reached a t the farm around 23.00 hours (a t night). Then we started to search fo r the husband o f Salom e who is Dotto Ntururu. When we were in the farm , I found "kwato" (footprints) and. the m arks o f the dragged body on the ground. We follow ed the m arks and eventually found the body o f the deceased..." The appellant's counsel further drew our attention to page 198 of the record which shows that, the trial' court found the appellant led the police to the body on the 6th day of June, 2018. The counsel asked us to compare the trial court's finding with PW5's evidence and adjudge that, it was not substantiated by the record. On the third ground of appeal, Mr. John contended that, the trial court convicted the appellant on account of the misunderstanding that existed between him and the deceased. He submitted that, the alleged discord was unproven and could not be acted upon. That, the dispute on division of the charcoal suggested by PW5 as possible motive for murder was refutable for insufficiency of evidence.

Further, the counsel argued that, the prosecution failed to lead evidence to show when the deceased left his residence, his intended destination and the circumstances of his disappearance to possibly link the appellant to the offence charged. In his view, the investigation was shoddy leading to insufficiency of the facts. On that line, he suggested that, the missing details could possibly be supplied by the deceased's wife, Salome, who informed PW5 on the missing husband but unfortunately, she did not testify and no reason was given. Upon being questioned by the Court, the counsel asserted that Njile and Budodi were also material witnesses to address the missing facts. Hovtever; the learned counsel was not certain if the cautioned .statement was recorded out of the four hours prescribed by the CPA and left the matter for determination by the Court. He prayed that this appeal be allowed. In response, Mr. Magige submitted that all the ingredients of the offence of murder were proved beyond reasonable doubt. That, the appellant was properly convicted on the basis of the cautioned5 statement (exhibit P3) and the circumstantial evidence. The counsel strongly asserted that, the evidence of PW5 was corroborated by other prosecution witnesses and the appellant himself irresistibly pointed out that the appellant murdered the deceased.. 10

On the first ground of appeal, the learned Senior State Attorney pointed out that, the trial Judige warned herself on the danger of using a retracted cautioned statement and found the statement well corroborated. He referred us to page 197 of the record of appeal where the trial Judge said the contents of exhibit P3 narrated the same story as described by PW3 and PW5. The Judge also found the statement substantiated the testimonies of PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW6. On the second and third grounds of appeal, Mr. Magige briefly submitted that, it was the appellant who led the policemen to discover the body at the scene of crime and that, such circumstantial evidence was strong enough to ground a conviction. Finally, he submitted that, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and urged this Court to dismiss the appeal. . When questioned by the Court, the learned Senior State Attorney acknowledged that the investigation was inadequate. When pressed further, he'said Salome was a material witness to fill the gaps regarding movements and activities of the deceased before the murder Incident and failure to call her dented the prosecution case. Similarly, it was incumbent on the prosecution to summon Budodi, the Commander of Sungusungu, to explain how the appellant was arrested and presented at the police station. 11

On the alleged contradictions, the learned Senior State Attorney conceded that, PW2, PW5 and PW6 differed as to the place and manner of drawing the sketch map and recording the witness statement. He contended that, it was not impossible for PW6 to record the statement of PW5 at the scene of crime whereas, as per the evidence of PW6 at page 103 of the record, he did not visit the scene of crime. Further, the sketch map of the crime scene (exhibit P2) was allegedly drawn by PW2 with the assistance of PW5 and Salome, wife of the deceased. However, at the time exhibit P2 was allegedly drawn, PW5 was elsewhere recording a witness statement under supervision of PW6 and Salome was unconscious for the wholejj^qy. This, leaves a lot to be desired, he argued. We have considered the memorandum of appeal, the counsel rival submissions, examined the record of appear and analysed the law applicable. The grounds of appeal can be clustered into three main issues: one, whether the cautioned statement (exhibit P3) was lawfully admitted and acted upon; tWo, whether the circumstantial evidence on record was sufficient to sustain the conviction against the appellant; and three, whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The last two issues will be considered jointly. It is trite law that in criminal cases, the prosecution has the duty to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, in a charge of 12

murder, the prosecution is bound to prove three ingredients: one; that, the death occurred, two; that, the death was caused by the unlawful act of commission or omission of the accused/appellant; and three; that, the accused/appellant had malice aforethought as he committed the act. See the cases of Anthony Kinamifa & Enock Anthony v. Republic [2021] TZCA and Chacha Ghati @ Gibita v. Republic [2024] TZCA 299. Regarding death of the deceased, we agree with the trial Judge's findings that, on account of the evidence of PW1 Dr. Halifa Mshana kimomwe, the medical doctor, the post mortem report (Exh. PI), PW2 G 205 CPL Amos, PW3 F2513 D/SGT Nimludi, PW5 WashaKanila and the evridencd'of DW1, who visited the scene and saw the body, the prosecution proved that the deceased, Dotto Ntururu had passed on and his death was an unnatural one. Exhibit PI showed the deceased died as a result of head injury and acute haemorrhage dug to trauma. The central question is whether the appellant caused the deceased's death. From the evidence on record, none of the prosecution witnesses actually saw the appellant or any other person kill the deceased. As such, there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the death of the deceased. The prosecution case was' predicated on the appellant's own confession as per the cautioned statement (exhibit P3) and circumstantial evidence. 13

The appellant's complaint on the cautioned statement which was retracted and repudiated was that it was recorded out of time contrary to sections 50 and 51 of the CPA. The statement (exhibit P3) was taken by PW6 G 206 D/C Matete who was also the investigating officer. The appellant claimed that he was subjected to torture and coercion, resulting in his thumbprint being forcibly applied to the statement which was subsequently admitted into evidence after a trial within trial. In Aziz Mohamed & Hamza Mohamed Madai @ Munja v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2006 (unreported) this Court remarked that, the CPA established specific safeguards that police must follow when recording statements from individuals under caution which includes sections 50 and 51. Section 50 (1) provides that, a cautioned statement must be recorded within 4 hours of the suspect being taken into custody. This time commences to run when the suspect is restrained in respect of the offence. Section 51 of the CPA allows for extensions of this 4-hour time limit under certain conditions. If the basic period available for interviewing the person is extended under section 51, the interview can exceed the initial 4-hour limit. 14

It is not disputed that exhibit P3 was recorded on 6th May, 2018 from 12:50 to 14:20 hours. However, the prosecution witnesses differed as to when the appellant was put under restraint in respect of the offence. On cross examination, PW6 said the appellant was taken to the police station on 6th May, 2018 at 5:00 hours. However, on examination by the learned State Attorney, PW3 said: "Lameck Samson was arrested on &h M ay 2018 a t night but he was sent to the police station around 8:00 to 9:00 hours..." On cross examination, PW3 informed the trial court that, he was not sure at what time the appellant arrived at the police station. On the other hand, the appellant (DW1) testified that, he was arrested by Budodi at around 1:00 hours on 5th May, 2018 and immediately ferried to Buseresere Police Station on a motorcycle @ bodaboda. In Shilanga Bunzali v. Republic [2022] TZCA 750, this Court considered this prosecution's omission to lead evidence on the appellant's time of arrest and concluded that, it adversely impacted on competency of the cautioned statement. On that basis, the cautioned statement was regarded as illegally procured. In the same vein, we find that exhibit P3 was illegally obtained and thus, expunge it from the record 15

Circumstantial evidence is an indirect evidence of a fact. It does not directly prove a fact but allows a reasonable inference to be drawn about the fact's existence. In the case of Joram Elia Kitomari v. Republic [2024] TZCA 725 this Court addressed itself on the circumstantial evidence, thus: "It is ah established principle o f law that fo r . circum stantialevidence to be relied upon to ground a conviction, it has to be watertight, irre sistib ly pointing to the g u ilt o f an accused person. See Shabani Abdallah v. Republic,. Crim inal Appeal No. 127 o f 2003 and Juma Salum Singano v. Republic, Crim inal appeal No. 172 o f2008 (both unreported)!In the present case, we observe that, the tria lm agistrate considered circum stances which allegedly connected the appellant with the deceased saying that, he was seen driving a tricycle green in colour w ithout the plate number, ju s t the same as the one driven by the deceased before h is death. I t was also her finding that, the plate num ber o f the said tricycle was retrieved from the house alleged to be o f the appellantdespite the fa ct that, the prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove that the plate num ber was o f that tricycle. Besides, the learned tria l m agistrate associated the appellant with the house in the vicin ity o f which the body o f the deceased was exhumed, but the 16

prosecution evidence fe ll short o f offering the explanation connecting him with the said house. Even the lo cal leaders o f that area were not called to prove that the house belonged to the appellant The learned tria l m agistrate tried to corroborate such evidence with the appellant's retracted cautioned statem ent, but in our view, the same could not work as the said two kinds o f evidence could hot corroborate each other " The principles for reliance to ground a conviction on circumstantial evidence were laid down in the case of Republic v. Kerstin Cameron [2003] T.L.R 84 where the High Court persuasively listed them down as follows: "(a) that evidence m ust be incapable o f more than one interpretation. (b) the facts from which an inference o f g u ilt o r adverse to the accused is sought to be drawn m ust be proved beyond reasonable doubt and m ust clearly be connected with the facts from which the inference is to be drawn o r inferred 1 i (c) in m urder cases, evidence should be cogentand com pelling as to convince aju ry, judge or court that upon no rational hypothesis the facts cannot be accounted fo r anything other than m urder ;" 17

The above principles were amplified by the Court in Manoja Masalu & Another v. Republic [2024] TZCA 409 thus: "In the circum stances, the prosecution case did not conclusively exclude the p o ssib ility that the fa ta l attacks could have been com m itted by a person or persons other than the appellants. I t was not proved to the h ilt that, the firs t appellant's suspicious movements a t the compound o f the deceased had any connection with the attack f Equally, it was not established that, the second appellant was responsible fo r the death o fh is siste r I t is settled law that, suspicion, however great, cannot be a basis to found conviction." Considering the above stated principles, the inescapable question is whether in the instant case, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution irresistibly linked the appellant to the murder incident. The testimony of great significance came from PW5 Washa Kanila, the uncle of the deceased and neighbour of the appellant. He testified that, around 6.00 hours on the 3rd day of May, 2018 the appellant and the deceased agreed to equally share the charcoal burnt in the appellant's.shamba. On further examination, PW5 reflected on his telephone conversations with Salome when she reported that her husband was 18

missing. At page 78 of the record, the witness testified on how the body was found lying on the ground within the deceased's farm,, thus: "Upon receiving the inform ation, I decided to make foiiow up a t h is shamba as wife o f the deceased told me that he le ft to the shamba with a bicycle, hoe and sack. I went to the deceased's shamba with m y young brother, Ai/iie. We reached there around 23.00 hours. Then we searched fo r the deceased. I found "kwato" (footsteps) and m arks o f the dragged body on the ground. We follow ed the m arks and found the body in the bush. We used torch lig h t to follow the m arks o f the dragged body and the footsteps. A t that tim e, I did hot see the bicycle but in the follow ing m orning, the police officers showed us the bicycle a t the anthill. A fte r we found the body, we inform ed relatives and the village leaders. The body o f the deceased was cut on the head." Explaining why the appellant was arrested in connection with the murder of the deceased, PW5 stated that: "Then we started the investigation and realized that Lam eck Samson could be the suspect. I suspected Lam eck Samson because he entered into an agreem ent with the deceased fo r equal sharing o f the charcoalburntin the deceased's shamba: I then inform ed the leader o f Sungusungu who arrested 19

him. I was present when Lam eck Samson was arrested...Then we le ft Lam eck Samson with sungusungu and we wentback to the forestreserve with other wananzengo (viliagers) to guard the body. We arrested Lam eck Samson around 00.00 hours a t h is residence." From the above excerpts, it is clear that, the deceased and the appellant concluded an oral agreement for equal sharing of the charcoal at least two days before the incident. No evidence was led to show how the deceased and the appellant progressed with implementation of the terms of the agreement from 3rd May to 5th May, 2018 when the deceased took his last breath. ; Considering that PW5 was the only prosecution witness who attempted to directly link the appellant with the incident, it is obvious the evidence on record failed to adequately support the prosecution's case. The testimony of PW5, as aptly acknowledged by the learned Senior State Attorney, exemplified the shortcomings of the investigation and illustrated how the failure to gather, crucial information can allow guilty parties to evade justice. In his evidence,, he outlined the oral agreement and recounted the words stated by Salome on the disappearance of the deceased which was largely hearsay. 20

For the prosecution to successfully prove murder relying on circumstantial evidence, it was bound to establish a chain of facts that, when viewed as a whole, leads to the conclusion that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The key aspects include the appellant's motive, if any; opportunity such as being near the crime scene, means of killing such as possession of a weapon used to kill the deceased, and a suspicious post - offence conduct such as fleeing from the scene of crime or lying about an alibi. In this case, none of ,the above aspects were addressed by the prosecution evidence such that, the chain of events from the date the deceased and the appellant concluded an oral agreement, 3rd May, 2018 to the date of the incident, 5*h day of May, 2018 were not attended to. As rightly held in the case of Manoja Masalu (supra) suspicion alone, however great, cannot be a basis for conviction. Connected with this issue was the alleged oral confession leading to discovery of the body of the deceased. A confession leading to the discovery of a body is relevant evidence in a criminal case,- where information from an accused person, even if made in custody, can be used to establish a fact, such as the hidden item or location of a dead body, provided it was discovered in consequence of that information; In Melkiad Christopher Manumbu & Others v. Republic [2019] TZCA 534 the Court held that, confessions that are otherwise inadmissible 21

are allowed to be given weight in evidence under section 31 of the Evidence Act 1967 if they lead to discovery of material objects connected with the crime. The rationale is that such discovery gives a guarantee of the truth of that portion of the confession. Such evidence is considered a single link in the overall chain of proof and is not typically the sole basis for a conviction. It demonstrates the accused's knowledge of the location of the hidden item or body, which is highly relevant. * In this appeal, the evidence shows the appellant was escorted to the scene of crime by policemen (PW2 and PW3) and the medical doctor, PW1 in the niorning hours of 6th May, 2018. At the scene of crime, the team found PW5 and other villagers who gathered close to the body. Narrating what transpired at the scene upon arrival of the appellant, policemen and the medical doctor, PW5.stated that: "It is true we saw the body o f the deceased before the police came. We also saw charcoalfurnace and the m ark that the body was dragged and "kw ato" (footsteps). I t is true that when the policem en came to the scene, they found people gathered a t the area where the body was found. Even if the policem en came w ithout Lam eck Samson , they could s till see the body o f the deceased.::"

Although the record did not clearly show how the incident was reported at the police station, a fact that policemen readily kept the appellant in custody and started immediate investigation leading to the arrest of Reuben Makanika, suggests that a report made by Budodi when presenting the appellant at the station, sufficiently enabled policemen to visit the scene of crime and conduct the post mortem examination as per exhibit PI. In the circumstances, we find that, the appellant did not lead the policemen to discover the body of the deceased at the scene of crime. If we may add, the role played by Budodi as outlined above, enhances the fact that, like Salome and Njile, he was ah important witneiss to call. Since the prosecution failed to call these material witnesses without a good reason, we are entitled to infer that their testimonies would have been unfavourable to the prosecution's case. Having analysed the evidence as above, we conclude that it is not safe to hold that, the appellant made an oral confession leading to discovery of the body of the deceased. The evidence on record showed that the body was discovered by PW5 and Njile, not the appellant. The prosecution failed to link the appellant to the cause of death of the deceased. 23

In the result, we find the appeal meritorious and accordingly allow it, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence meted out against the appellant. Finally, we order the immediate release of the appellant from custody unless he is continually held for other lawful cause. DATED at MWANZA this 13thday of October, 2025. W. B. KOROSSO JUSTICE OF APPEAL P M. KENTE JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. S. KHAMIS JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered this 13th day of October, 2025 in the presence of the appellant in person and Mr. Mahembega Elias Mtiro, learned State Attorney for the Respondent/Republic connected virtually and Miss Harida Hamisi, the Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. 24