Joseph Issaya Sengeon vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 30093 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 3036 (8 June 2026)

Page 1 of 8 THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT MOSHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 30093 OF 2025 (Originating from the Resident Magistrate ’s Court of Moshi at Moshi in Economic Case No. 28499 of 2024 ) JOSEPH ISSAYA SENGEON……………………………...………APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC…..…………………………………………..…..RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT 11 th May & 0 8 th June , 2026 MONGELLA, J. Before the Resident Magistrate’s Court for Moshi (the trial court , hereinafter ), the appellant together with one Emanuel Joseph Ngilorit and Ramadhani Mustafa Mwaswi were jointly charged as 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd accused persons , respectively , with thirteen (13) counts. O ne count was on occasioning loss to the specified a uthority contrary to the provisions of paragraph 10 [1] of the 1 st schedule to and section 57[1] and 60[2] of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act , Cap 200 R . E . 2022 . S ix counts were on d amaging properties used for the purpose of providing necessary services contrary to the provisions of paragraph 20[1],[3] of the 1 st schedule to and section 57[1] and 60[2] of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act Cap 200 RE 2022 ; an d six counts

Page 2 of 8 were on stealing contrary to the provisions of section 258[1] [2][a] and 265 of the Penal Code , Cap 16 R . E . 2022. It should be noted that before the trial court, the appellant and his co - accused pleaded not guilty to all the counts. The prose cution was heard and, at the clos ure of the prosecution case, the third accused was acquitted. Upon full trial, the appellant and the second accused were found guilty on all thirteen counts. The second accused, being a minor, was conditionally discharged f or a period of twelve (12) months, whereas the appellant was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment in respect of all counts . The sentence was to run concurrently . In addition, he was ordered to pay compensation in the sum of T . s hs. 116,237,365/ - . It is against this conviction and sentence that the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court praying that the conviction be quashed and the sentence be set aside. He advanced eleven (11) grounds of appeal , to wit ;

1. That , the learned trial Magistrate grossly erred both in law and fact in convicting the a ppellant basing on suspicious evidence, yet, suspicions however strong and grave cannot be a basis of the conviction in a criminal trial.
2. That , the learned trial Magistra te grossly erred both in law and fact in convicting the appellant on a charge which he did not

Page 3 of 8 plead to, a s the 1 st charge was amended and being not read over and explained to the a ppellant. 3. That , the learned trial Magistrate grossly misdirected himself and consequently erred both in law and fact in stating that the appellant (DW1 at the trial) was searched and found/seized with the bag contained several items (Exh. PE1). Yet it is unborn evidence, a s the one who was allegedly searched and being found with the said Exh. PE 1 is the DW2 (at the trial and not part to this Appeal) . (sic) 4. That , the learned trial Magistrate grossly erred both in law and fact in failing to note that, the certificate of search and seizure (Exh. Pe4 - collectively) was not proved against the a ppellant, since the a ppellant disputed to have signed Exh, PE4 – c ollective ly . Therefore, the prosecution ought to have had proved the said signature against the appellant. (sic) 5. That , the learned trial Magistrate grossly erred both in law and fact in failing to note that, the arresting officer ( PW3) failed to adhere to the man datory provisions of section 58(2) of the CPA, Cap 20 R.E . 2023, a s the PW3 testified that, he interviewed/ interrogated the a ppellant and that the appellant admitted to the commission of the said offence therefore, he ought to have had recorded the a ppellant's cautioned statement as per the above - mentioned provisions of law. (sic)

Page 4 of 8 6. That , the learned trial Magistrate grossly erred both in law and fact in failing to note that, there was a delay in arraigning the a ppellant before the court, contrary to section 33(1) of the CPA, Cap 20 R.E 2023. 7. That , the learned trial Magistrate grossly erred both in law and fact in failing to note that, the PW3 did not identified the Exh. PE1 a s he only identified the bag but did not identify the tools/items which were allegedly inside the said bag. (sic) 8. That , the learned trial Magistrate grossly erred both in law and fact in convicting and sentencing the appellant despite the trial court having no jurisdiction to try the case at hand (An Economic case) a s there was no certificate conferring jurisdiction to the court and the consent from the DPP. 9. That , the learned trial Magistrate grossly erred both in law and fact in failing to consider the strong, unchallenged and well supported a ppellant's defense evidence, which is contrary to natural justice and unsettles the judgment. 10. That, the learned trial Magistrate grossly erred both in law and fact in using weak, tenuous, contradictory, inconsistency, incredible and wholly unreliable prosecution's evidence as a basis of the a ppellant's conviction.

Page 5 of 8 11. That , the learned trial Magistrate grossly erred both in law and fact in convicting and sentencing the a ppellant despite the charge being not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the a ppellant and to the required standard by the law . At the hearing of this a ppeal, the appellant was unrepresented, whereas the respondent was represented by Mr. Makore Maheri, learned State Attorney. The appeal was heard by way of written submissions. The appellant prayed that his grounds of appeal be adopted as his submissions i n chief, which prayer was accordingly granted. In his reply submissions, Mr. Maheri, conceded to the appeal. He argued jointly on the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th , 6 th , 7 th , 9 th , 10 th and 11 th ground s of appeal . He submitt ed that the case against the appellants was not proved to the standard required by law, thereby occasioning injustice to the appellant. In support of his submissions, he relied on the case of Simon Steven vs . Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2022) [2025] TZCA 344 (11 April 2025) , which emphasized on the elementary principle of criminal law that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution throughout the trial. Addressing the 8 th ground of appeal, Mr. Maheri agreed with the appellant that neither consent nor a certificate by the DPP conferring jurisdiction upon the trial court to entertain and determine the matter was issued. He averred that the provisions of

Page 6 of 8 sec tion 12(3) and (5) of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act, Cap. 200 R.E. 2022 , requires subordinate courts to be conferred with jurisdiction by way of a certificate before trying economic offences. It was his submission that, in the instant case, the record is silent as to whether such jurisdiction was ever conferred upon the trial court, thereby rendering the entire proceedings a nullity. To fortify his argument, he relied on the case o f Aloyce Joseph vs . Republic (Criminal Appeal 35 of 2020) [2022] TZCA 771 (5 December 2022 , TANZLII ) , which nullified trial court proceedings for the failure to formally file and receive the DPP ’s consent and certificate. Conclu ding , Mr. Maheri urged th is C ourt to allow the appeal. Addressing the grounds of appeal, I shall begin with the 8 th ground, as it touches on the jurisdiction of the tri al court. Should this ground succeed , it will suffice to depose this appeal , thereby making it unnecessary to consider the remaining grounds. The provision s of Section 26(1) of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act, Cap. 200 R.E. 2023 (the Act), require that every economic offence be instituted with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Further, section 12(3) and (5) of the Act requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue a certificate conferring jurisdiction upo n the subordinate court to try economic offences, and such certificate is required to be lodged in the court concerned.

Page 7 of 8 Upon perusal of the trial court proceedings, it is apparent, as rightly pointed out by the parties, that the record is silent on whethe r the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute the proceedings, as well as , the certificate conferring jurisdiction upon the trial court, were filed before the trial court to enable it to entertain the economic offences in question. In the absence of such compliance, the trial court was not properly seized with jurisdiction to hear and determine the case thus, the entire proceedings were conducted unlawfully . S ee , Maganzo Zelamoshi @ Nyanzomola vs . Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2016) [2018] TZCA 783 (6 September 2018 , TANZLII ) , John Julius Martin & Another vs . Republic (Criminal Appeal 42 of 2020) [2022] TZCA 789 (8 December 2022 , TANZLII ) and Adam Selemani Njalamo to vs . Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 2016) [2018] TZCA 373 (1 March 2018 , TANZLII ) . That being so, I hereby allow this ground, nullify the proceedings of the trial court and accordingly quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. This ground being enough to deliberate this appeal, there is no need to address other grounds of appeal. The next p oint I am called to determine after nullification of the lower court proceedings, is what is the way forward , as normally in situation s like this, the court will order a retrial before a competent court with jurisdiction . In determining this question, as it can be noted from the brief sub missions of the respondent ’s counsel as

Page 8 of 8 narrated herein above, the prosecution side itself is of the view that the case before the trial court was not proved to the required standard . Being at one with the learned State Attorney’s observations, I am therefore inclined to hold that ordering a retrial would afford the prosecution an opportunity to fill gaps they believe they missed during trial , which apparently shall be to the detriment of the appellant. It is a settled principle that a retrial should only be ordered in the interests of justice, and not where it is likely to occasion injustice to an accused person. S ee Maulid Ismail Ndonde vs . Republic (Criminal Appeal 319 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 538 (29 September 2021 , TANZLII ) and Kuncha Mbwita Kimase vs . Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2021) [2025] TZCA 1039 (8 October 2025 , TANZLII ) . In the premises, I hereby order the immediate release of the appellant from prison custody, unless otherwise lawfully held. Dated and delivered at Moshi on this 08 th day of June , 2026. X L. M. MONGELLA JUDGE Signed by: L. M. MONGELLA