Chacha Mwita @Sira vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 00002648 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 3119 (11 June 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 1 MUSOMA SUB-REGISTRY AT MUSOMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 00002648 OF 2026 (Arising from the District Court of Serenge/i (A.C Mzalitu_ RJof) In Economic esse No. 112 of 2020) CHACHA MWIT A @SIRA .. , I ••••• I •••••••••••••••••••• II •••••••••••••• APPELLANT VERSUS T·HE REPUBUC •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RESPONDENT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 08/06/2026 & 11/06/2026 Kafanabo, 1.: This appeal arises from a judgment of the District Court of Serengeti (A.C. Mzalifu, RM) (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), in Economic case No. 112 of 2020, dated 14th December 2021. According to the facts on record, the Appellant was arraigned in the trial Court for three offences. First count was unlawful entry into the national park contrary to sections 21(1)(a) and (2) and 29(2) of the National Parks Act, Cap. 282 R.E. 2002, as amended by Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, No. 11 of 2003. It was alleged that on the 25 th Day of September 2020, in the Lembise area of the Serengeti National Park, within Serengeti District, Mara region, the Appellant entered the park without the Director's permission. 2 The second count was unlawful possessionof weapons in the national park, contrary to sections 24(1)(b) and (2) of the National Parks Act, Cap. 282 R.E 2002, and the third count was unlawful possessionof government trophies, contrary to sections 86(1) and (2)( c) (iii) of the Wildlife Conservation Act, No. 05 of 2009, as amended by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, No. 02 of 2016, read together with sections 57(1) and 60(2) and paragraph 14 of the First Schedule to the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act, Cap. 200 R.E 2019. As regards the second and third counts the Respondent alleged that on 25 th Day of September 2020, at Lembise area, within the Serengeti National Park,within Serengeti District, Mararegion, the Appellant was found in unlawful possession of weapons, namely, one knife and two animal- trapping wires (hereinafter referred to as the 'weapons'), and that he failed to satisfy an authorised officer that the weapons were intended for purposes other than hunting, killing, wounding or capturing wild animals. It was further alleged that the Appellant was found in possession of government trophies, namely, one fresh hindlimb of wildebeest attached to the 'waist' (sic), valued at TZS 1,495,000/=, the property of the United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as the 'government trophy'). It is on record that on 4th May 2021, the charge sheet was read to the Appellant, who pleaded not guilty to all three counts, and thus a plea of not guilty was entered on all counts. The matter then proceeded to a full trial. On 14th December 2021, the trial court convicted the Appellant of all three counts and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment for the first and second counts and twenty years' imprisonment for the third count. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the convictions and sentences, and after seeking an extension of time, which was duly granted by the Court, preferred the present appeal setting forth six grounds of appeal. However, during the hearing of the appeal, he abandoned grounds three, four, and six; thus, grounds one, two, and five remained for determination. In the determination of this appeal, the same reference to the grounds of appeal shall be maintained for ease of reference. The substance of the remaining grounds is as follows: 1. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was found in the National Park, and was found in possession of weapons and Government trophies. 2. The trial court erred in law and fact in convicting and sentencing the appel/ant without considering that the chain of custody of exhibits was broken. 5. The prosecution failed to demonstrate the area of arrest within the statutory boundaries of the National Park and failed to prove unlawful possession of weapons in the National Park. At the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant appeared in person, and Ms Joyce Matimbwi, a learned State Attorney, appeared for the Respondent. In support of the appeal, the Appellant was very brief; he beseeched the Court to consider his grounds of appeal and to set him free. Providentially, the Appellant was supported by the Respondent in the appeal. The learned State Attorney argued grounds one and five together, considering that they all boiled down to the argument that the case against the Appellant was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 3 It was contended that the Respondent failed to prove that the Appellant was arrested within the Serengeti National Park because the arresting officers did not record GPScoordinates at the point of arrest, and thus no map was prepared to show that the arrest occurred within the Serengeti National Park. It was further argued that the failure to take coordinates at the point of arrest within the national park renders the offenses of unlawful entry and being found with weapons within the national park unproven. It was thus prayed that the first and fifth grounds of appeal be allowed. Regarding the second ground of appeal, which the Appellant raised regarding the broken chain of custody of the exhibits, the learned State Attorney submitted that the chain of custody was indeed broken. It was argued that after the arrest, the accused was taken to the Mugumu Police Station, and upon arrival, the record does not indicate how the exhibits were handled, nor is there any indication of who took custody of them at the police station. It was further noted that even the valuer, who testified as PW3, did not explain from whom he obtained the government trophy for valuation purposesor to whom he handed it over after valuation. Moreover, even PW4, the investigator, did not explain from whom he obtained the government trophy, which he took to the Magistrate to seek a disposal order. Therefore, it was contended that the chain of custody of the weapons and the government trophy was not established. The cases of Paulo Maduka and Others v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2007, and Abas Kondo Gede v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2017, were cited to support the position that a proper 4 chain of custody, whether oral or documented, is necessary to establish the movement of exhibits. In light of the above, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed. Given the above submissions, the Court will now proceed to determine the appeal in accordance with the law and the evidence on record. Considering the three grounds of appeal referred to above, it is clear that they all hinge on the Respondent's failure to prove the three counts leveled against the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. It follows that the issue for determination is whether the three counts leveled against the Appellant were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining the above issue, the Court is heedful of the legal principle that it is the duty of the prosecution (Respondent herein) to prove the case against the accused (Appellant) beyond a reasonable doubt. See section 3(2)(a) read together with section 117 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 6 R.E. 2023. See also the case of Awadhi Abrahamani Waziri vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2014 (unreported). As to the first count of unlawful entry into the national park and the second count of unlawful possession of weapons in the national park, it is trite law that both counts can be proved only if the prosecution shows that the Appellant was found and arrested within the boundaries of the Serengeti National Park. This position was reaffirmed in the cases of Maduhu Nhandi @ Limbu vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2017) [2022] TZCA 78 (25 February 2022) (TANZUI) and Marwa Chacha Gekondo vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2020) [2024] TZCA 539 (10 July 2024) (TANZLII). In Maduhu Nhandi (supra), it was held that: 5 6 "Similarly- in the instant appeal, as we have amply demonstrated above, it was not sufficient for PWl and PW2 to simply state in general that the appellant was arrested in Grumeti River or in the bushes within Serengeti National Park without showing that the said area is within the statutory limits described by the First Schedule to the NPA. Theprosecution had to prove the allegation in the particulars of the counts by demonstrating the particular place of Grumeti area which fell within the statutory boundaries of SENAPA. Regrettably- according to the evidence on record, this was not accomplished by the prosecution." Returning to the facts of the present easel as rightly submitted by Ms. Matimbwi, the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 1 as captured on pages 19 to 24 of the trial court's proceedinqs, indicate that they were both conservation rangers and arresting officers who allegedly found the Appellant within the Serengeti National Park with weapons and a government trophy. However, none of them took GPS coordinates, which would have clearly identified the arrest location and assisted the Court in determining whether the Appellant was found and arrested within the Serengeti National Park. Moreover, the arresting officers did not establish the boundaries of the Serengeti National Park in any other manner to show that the Lembise areal where the Appellant was allegedly arrested, was within the Serengeti National Park. Moreoverl as the learned State Attorney rightly contended, no map was tendered to prove that the point of the Appellant's arrest was within the Serengeti National Park. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that the first and second counts were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law. It also follows that the first and fifth grounds of appeal are allowed. As for the third count, concerning unlawful possessionof a government trophy, the Appellant was charged under section 86(1) of the Wildlife Conservation Act (supra), which sets out the elements of the offense. The section provides that: "Subject to the provisions of this Act; a person shall not be in possession of, or buy, sell or otherwise deal in any Government trophy. " The foregoing section plainly provides for elements of the offence, and one of them is that the accused must be found in possession of a trophy. The above position was also taken by the Court in the case of Chacha Matiko @ Marwa vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 663 of 2023) [2026] TZCA80 (23 February 2026)(TANZLII), where the Court stated that: ''It is incontrovertible that the charges against the appellant involved unlawful possession of a government trophy. Thisis an offence whoseproof requires the establishment of the existence of three key ingredients. These are: firstly, that the accused was found to be in possession of the alleged trophies; secondly, that the seized items were government trophies; and thirdly, that the person found in possession did not have a valid permit for the items he is in possession of." See also the case of Ally Ally @ Mgoa vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2022) [2026] TZCA 192 (3 March 2026) (TANZLII). In light of the foregoing, it is clear that, to prove the third count, the Respondent was required to show that the Appellant was in possession of a government trophy. 7 8 It is also this Court's view that, to prove to the Court that the Appellant was in possession of a government trophy, the Respondent was required to show that the government trophy allegedly presented at the Mugumu Urban Primary Court on 25/09/2020, when seeking the disposal order, was the same as the one allegedly found with the Appellant at the time of arrest. That is, the chain of custody from the moment of arrest to the issuance of the disposal order should be clearly established, However, the trial court's record suggests otherwise. As the learned State Attorney rightly argued, the Respondent failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the government trophy. The trial court's record, through the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, indicates that after the Appellant was allegedly arrested with weapons and the government trophy, he was taken to the Mugumu Police Station, where both the weapons and the government trophy were marked with reference number MUG/IR/2666/2020. However, the record does not indicate who at the police station received the alleged exhibits. Moreover, the testimony of PW3, the valuer and identifier of the government trophy, on pages 30-31 of the trial court's proceedings indicates that he was called by PW4 to identify a trophy shown to him. However, it is not stated whose custody the trophy was in during the valuation and identification, nor to whom it was handed over after the valuation exercise. Furthermore, PW4, the investigation officer, testified that he was assigned the case file with reference number MUG/IR/2666/2020 for investigation. Later, he took the Appellant and the alleged government trophy to the Magistrate, where he obtained a disposal order. Nevertheless, PW4 did not explain how or from whom he obtained the alleged government trophy. In light of the above testimonies from the prosecution's witnesses, it is clear that the Respondent failed to establish a chain of custody for both the government trophy and the weapons. That is, there is neither an oral nor a documented chain of custody for all items with which the Appellant was allegedly arrested. It is also the view of this Court that, because the chain of custody for the government trophy was not established/ the inventory of claimed property, admitted as exhibit 'PE4', was procured on a faulty chain of custody and is therefore not reliable evidence that what was presented before the Magistrate as a government trophy was the same item allegedly arrested with the Appellant. The requirement to maintain a proper chain of custody of any item expected to be used as evidence in Court is well settled in our jurisdiction. A cursory glance lands on paragraph 17 of Order 229 of the Police General Orders, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PGO,)/ which provides that: "Whenever an exhibit is passed from the custody of one officer to that of another, the officer who hands over the exhibit shall record in the presence of the latter officer the name, rank, and number of the officer to whom he hands over the exhibit and the date and time of the handing over on the back of the Exhibit Labe/. " Given the trial court's record/ as demonstrated earlier in this judgment, the above PGO's requirement was not complied with from the moment the weapons and the government trophy were allegedly handed over to the Mugumu Police Station. 9 10 Moreover, the importance of maintaining an intact chain of custody to ensure the reliability of exhibits tendered in Court is also stated in paragraph 8 of PGO 229, which provides: "(a)chain of custody of the exhibit establishes that the exhibit is the same associated with the crime for which the accused person is charged and that the said exhibit has not been tampered with. (b) The chain of custody of exhibits helps to establish that the alleged evidence (exhibits) is, In fact, related to the alleged crime. Likewise, the rationale for maintaining a proper chain of custody was also restated in Wallenstein Alvares Santillan vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 68 of 2019) [2022] TZCA 516 (22 August 2022), where the Court held that: ''It is settled that the chain of custody must be clearly indicated to establish that the exhibits were not tampered with (seeAbuhi Omar Abdallahand ThreeOthers II. TheRepubllc_ CriminalAppealNo. 28 of 2010 (unreported). It is also settled that it is important to have the chronological documentation and/ or paper trail showing the seizure, custody, control; transfer, analysis and disposition of evidence to guarantee that the said evidence relates to the alleged crime [see Paulo Maduka and 4 Others v. The Republic, Criminal AppealNo. 110 of 2007(unreportedl]." Additionally, in Chukwudi Denis Okechukwu & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 2015) [2018] TZCA 255 (17 September 2018) (TANZLII), the Court held that: "The rationale is not far-fetched, It includes, one, to ensure the Integrity of the chain of custody to eliminate the possibility of the exhibit being tampered with. Tw~ to establish that, the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime in which it is being tendered, rather than for instance having been manufactured fraudulently to make someone guilty. " See also the case of Jumanne Galiyela Ghati and Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 21 & 28 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 991 (28 October 2024) (TANZLII). In light of the foregoing authorities, the Respondent failed to establish a chain of custody, and thus the trial court erred in admitting Exhibits 'PE2' (weapons) and 'PE4' (Inventory of a claimed property). These exhibits are hereby expunged from the record. Therefore, this Court is firmly of the view that the Respondent failed to prove the third count of unlawful possession of government trophies beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering the foregoing in its entirety, this Court concludes that the case against the Appellant was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt under section 3(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 6 R. E. 2023. This Court's conclusion that the Respondent did not sufficiently prove the case against the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt effectively disposes of the appeal. As a result, there is no need to address the other grounds, as doing so would be pointless. Therefore, in the final anatvsls, the appeal is allowed, the trial court's determinations of guilt against the Appellant are hereby annulled, and the convictions are consequently invalidated. The sentences imposed on the 11 12 Appellant on all counts are also rescinded. Furthermore, the Appellant, Chacha Mwita @ Sira, unless detained for another lawful reason, shall be released and immediately freed from the detention facility where he is presently confined. 11· da)~i;:6 K. I. a anabo Judge The Judgment was delivered in the presence of Ms. Joyce Matimbwi, a learned State Attorney for the Respondent, and in the presence of the Appellant.