Godfrid Joseph @ Kanjalanga vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 27135 of 2025; Economic Case No. 000016472 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 3051 (9 June 2026)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA SUMBAWANG SUB - REGISTRY AT SUMBAWANGA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27135 OF 2025 ( Appeal from the decision of the District Court of Nkasi at Namanyere in Economic Case no. 000016472 of 2025 dated 24 th day of September, 2025, before Hon. Denis G. Luwungo) GOD F RID S/O JOSEPH @KANJALANGA…………………………………..APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ……………………………………………………………… RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MWENEMPAZI, J. This appeal arises from the decision of the District Court of Nkasi District at Namanyere in Economic Case No. 000016472 of 2025. The appellant, Godfrid s/o Joseph @ Kanjalanga , was charged with the offence of unlawful possession of government trophy , contrary to section 86(1) and (2)(b) of the Wildlife Conservation Act, Cap. 283 R.E. 2022 , read together with paragraph 14 of the First Schedule to, and sections 57(1) and 60(2) of, the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, Cap. 200 R.E. 2022 . According to the charge sheet, it was alleged that on 26th June 2025 , at Lunyala Village within Nkasi District in Rukwa Region , the appellant was found in possession of two pieces of elephant

2 tusks , valued at USD 20,000 , equivalent to Tshs. 57,077,000/= , the property of the United Republic of Tanzania, without a valid license or permit from the relevant authority. The record shows that when the appellant first appeared before the trial court on 8th July 2025, the charge was read and explained to him . Still, he was not required to plead because the court lacked jurisdiction at that stage, as the necessary certificate conferring jurisdiction and the Director of Public Prosecutions' consent to prosecute the accused for the economic offense had not yet been filed. The matter was adjourned several times pending completion of the in vestigation and filing of the requisite certificate. Eventually, on 24 th September, 2025, the prosecution informed the court that the investigation had been completed and sought leave to file the certificate from the District Prosecution Officer, together with a substituted charge sheet. The trial court granted the request, received the certificate, and ordered the charge to be read and explained to the appellant. Upon the substituted charge being read to him, the appellant admitted that he was found in po ssession of two elephant tusks. However, the prosecution later noticed an error in the stated value of the trophies and sought leave to amend the charge sheet to reflect a value of USD 20,000 . The prayer was

3 granted, a fresh certificate was received, and t he amended substituted charge was again read and explained to the appellant. The appellant again admitted the charge, stating that he was found in possession of two elephant tusks by wildlife officers while riding a motorcycle. Thereafter, the prosecution narrated the facts of the case. It was stated that on the material date, the appellant was traveling as a passenger on a motorcycle at Lunyala Village when wildlife officers from Lwafi Game Reserve stopped the motorcycle on suspicion. The appellant was sa id to have been carrying a salfet bag on his lap . In the presence of an independent witness, the officers searched the bag and recovered two elephant tusks. The prosecution further alleged that the appellant admitted ownership of the bag and stated that he was taking the tusks to his customer. The appellant was subsequently taken to Namanyere Police Station, where the tusks were valued and confirmed as government trophies. The prosecution tendered the two elephant tusks, the certificate of seizure, the cha in - of - custody record, and the trophy valuation certificate. The appellant did not object to their admission and expressly stated that the tusks were the ones for which he had been arrested and that he had signed

4 the certificate of seizure. After the facts were read to him, he confirmed that he had heard and understood them and admitted them as true and correct. On that basis, the trial court held that the appellant had entered an unequivocal guilty plea, was convicted on his plea, and was sentenced to twen ty years ’ imprisonment. The trial court also ordered the forfeiture of the elephant tusks to the Director of Wildlife for disposal. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal. In substance, he challenges the propriety of the conviction entered upon his guilty plea, contending that he did not commit the offense, that the trial court should have conducted a full trial given the seriousness of the charge, that the plea was not unequivocal, that the procedure for taking the plea was defective, and that his alleged confession was involuntary. He therefore prays that the appeal be allowed, the conviction quashed, the sentence set aside, and that he be released from prison. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant appeared in person. He was unrepresented, and Mr. Gerinus Mzanila, learned State Attorney , appeared for the respondent Republic .

5 The appellant briefly submitted that he had already filed his grounds of appeal with the Court. He prayed that the said ground s be adopted and considered as part of his submission. On that basis, he urged th is Court to allow the appeal, quash the conviction and sentence, and order his release. In reply, Mr. Mzanila submitted that the Republic had reviewed the grounds of appeal an d was of the view that they all essentially challenged the trial court ’ s decision to convict the appellant on his guilty plea. He stated that the appellant was charged with the offense of unlawful possession of government trophies, namely , two elephant tus ks. According to him, when the charge was read and explained to the appellant, the appellant admitted it. The learned State Attorney further submitted that the prosecution thereafter read the facts constituting the offense to the appellant and explained th em . In the course of doing so, the prosecution also tendered several exhibits, namely the two elephant tusks, the certificate of seizure, the chain - of - custody form, and the trophy valuation report. He contended that the appellant was allowed to respond to the facts and to object to the tendering of the exhibits . Still, he admitted the facts and did not object to the admission of the exhibits.

6 Mr. Mzanila further submitted that the appellant admitted the entire statement of facts set out by the prosecution. Consequently, the trial court properly convicted him on his guilty plea and sentenced him in accordance with the law. He maintained that the trial court correctly directed itself and complied with the principles governing the taking of a guilty plea, as st ated in Michael Adrian Chaki v. Republic , Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2019 [TZCA], where the Court of Appeal provided guidance on the procedure to be followed when an accused person admits the charge. On that basis, the respondent urged this Court to dismis s the appeal in its entirety and uphold both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. In reply, the appellant insisted that his admission to the trial court was not voluntary. He alleged that he had been beaten and threatened by TAWA off icers and that he admitted the offence only to save his life. He further complained that when the matter came before the trial court, he was not properly heard and that only the TAWA officers were heard. He also contended that no witness was called to test ify against him. On those grounds, he maintained his prayer that the appeal be allowed. In determining this appeal, the central issue is whether the appellant ’ s conviction, entered pursuant to his guilty plea, was lawful. This necessarily

7 calls upon the Co urt to examine whether the plea was unequivocal, whether the charge and the facts disclosed all essential elements of the offense, whether the amendment of the charge and the filing of the certificate were procedurally proper, and whether the sentence impo sed is sustainable in the circumstances of the case. In the case of Helman Basekana vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2016) [2018] TZCA 779 (5 September 2018) , it was held that: “ It is pertinent to note that the law bars an appeal against conviction where an accused has pleaded guilty to an offense. Section 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 20 R.E. 2002 (the CPA) states as follows: “360. No appeal on appeal of guilty: (1) No appeal shall 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 of legality of the sentence. ” The appellant in this appeal was convicted and sentenced foll owing his own plea of guilty to the charge. Thus, under normal circumstances , he is barred

8 from appealing against his conviction unless he believes the sentence imposed on him is illegal. However, as I was reviewing the record, I noted that the trial magis trate recorded that the prosecution prayed to tender a certificate conferring jurisdiction on the court, and that it was received. Also , the new substituted charge was read over to the accused person. However , according to the law, in particular , it was he ld in the case of Mabula Mela Mindi and Others vs Republic 2018 TZCA 776 (30 August 2018) that: “ Any court other than the economic crimes court would be clothed with jurisdiction to try an economic crime case if there is a consent and a certificate to confer jurisdiction upon that court by the DPP or State Attorney, duly authorized by him. That is a requirement of section 12(3) of the Act. (that is ‘ Economic and Organized Crime Control Act , Cap. 200 R.E. 2019’) In the present case, I have perused the tr ial court record , but I could not see the documents in the file. According to Regulation 9 of the Judicature and Application of Laws (Electronic Filing) Rules, 2018 , G. N. 148 of 2018, it is provided that:

9 “ The official record of the court shall be the el ectronic case file (ECF), proceedings pertaining to that case, together with any documents and exhibits filed under the conventional method. ” It is therefore doubtful whether the trial court was clothed with the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine the case before it. In short, the proceedings, judgment, and sentence stemmed from a nullity. I proceed to quash the proceedings and Judgment and set aside the senten ce meted out to the appellant . Following the decision in the case cited above, the way forward is to order a retrial. I therefore remit this case back to the district court of Nkasi at Namanyere for the appellant to be tried afresh before another magistrat e of competent jurisdiction. It is ordered accordingly. Dated and delivered at Sumbawanga, this 09 th day of June, 2026 T.M. MWENEMPAZI JUDGE