Patrick Erasto Manyuli and Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 5212 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 2997 (5 June 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA DODOMA SUB REGISTRY AT DODOMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5212 OF 2026 (Arising from the decision of the District Court of Dodoma at Dodoma in Criminal Case No 4292 of 2025 delivered on 29/12/2025) PATRICK ERASTO MANYULI .............................................. 1 st APPELLANT SAMWEL FRANK MATO ........................................................ 2 nd APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ......................................................................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 6/5/2026 & 5/6/2026 MASABO, J.:- The appellants herein were charged and convicted before the District Court of Dodoma at Dodoma ("the trial court") of two counts, namely: gang rape contrary to section 130(1) and 131 A (2)(1) of the Penal Code Cap 16 and unnatural offence contrary to section 154 (1) (a) of the Penal Code Cap 16. Deeply aggrieved, they have knocked on the doors of this court challenging their conviction and sentence. In a nutshell, the particulars of the two counts were that, on 17 th December 2024 at Maili Mbili area, within the District and Region of Dodoma, the appellants gang raped the victim, a girl aged 19 years old, and knew her against the order of nature. As per the prosecution's evidence, on the date of the incident, the victim, while sleeping in her room, heard her door being pushed. Two men forcefully opened it and entered her room. One had rasta, and the other had kinky hair. They had a screw driver, which they placed near her and ordered her to shut up. They then muzzled her mouth, abducted her and took her to an unfinished house, where they raped her and carnally knew her against the order of nature. Having Page 1 of 6

molested her, they fled and left her at the scene. The victim managed to return home, where she informed her neighbours about the ordeal, reported the incident at the police station and went for treatment upon obtaining a PF3. The appellants were arrested and upon being positively identified by the victim at an identification parade, they were arraigned in court. On their side, the appellants offered a total denial which was found to have cast no doubt on the prosecution's case. They were consequently found guilty of both offences and were subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of the first count and thirty (30) years imprisonment for the second count, and were ordered to pay a compensation of TZS 1,000,000/= to the victims. Their appeal to this court has 14 grounds. During the hearing of their appeal, which was conducted through written submissions, they were dully represented by Mr. Fred Kalonga, learned advocate. The Republic was represented by Mr. Lucas Komba, learned State Attorney. Submitting in support of the appeal, Mr. Kalonga abandoned most of the grounds of appeal and remained with the first, eleventh and twelfth grounds of appeal, the substance of which is summarised as follows: One, the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Two, the trial court erred in law and fact by failing to notice that it was not clear as to when the victim was examined. Three, the trial court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for its deliberate and inexplicable failure to call the victim's co-tenant and the social welfare officer. He submitted in support of these grounds and prayed that the appeal be allowed. For the respondent, Mr. Komba, submitted in opposition and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Page 2 of 6

Before determining the four grounds, I will start with an issue I raised suo motto. It concerns the validity of the charge sheet and the proceedings. As per the record, the actual name of the victim is not disclosed in the charge sheet. She is described by an acronym as "A.M". At the preliminary hearing, she was similarly identified by the same acronym, but in the course of the hearing the witnesses addressed her by different names, raising an impression of the disparity between the chargesheet and evidence. Addressing the court, Mr. David Ouma, representing Mr. Kalonga, counsel for the appellant, submitted that the charge sheet and the evidence are at variance insofar as the name of the victim is concerned. Whereas the charge she is identified by acronym as "A.M.", the witnesses did not address her by this name. Some of the witnesses referred to her simply as the victim, and others, especially PW6, identified her by the name of Agness Mwaluko. No explanation was given to link A.M, the victim and Agness Mwaluko. The inconsistencies, he argued, occasioned a fatal anomaly as there was nothing in the record showing that there was any link between the person identified by the acronym as A.M, the person simply referred to as the victim and the one mentioned by PW6. Thus, the charge remained unproved. He argued that the defect meant that the accused persons were denied the right to be heard. He prayed that the appellants be discharged. Mr. Kesanta, for the respondent, conceded and submitted that the variance are glaring and although in their record, there was an order for protection of witnesses granted in a separate application, the same was not part of the proceedings from which the instant appeal emanates, and it is therefore alien. He concluded that the non-disclosure of the name of the victim denied the accused persons the opportunity to understand the nature of the charge facing them and rendered the proceedings and the subsequent conviction and Page 3 of 6

sentence a nullity. Thus, they should be quashed and set aside, and the appellant be set free. On my side, while I agree with the learned counsel, I am of the view that the proceedings exhibit two anomalies, namely non-disclosure of the accused's name in the charge sheet and variance between the charge sheet and the evidence. Regarding non-disclosure of the name of the victim, the charge sheet, being the foundation of all criminal trials, must contain all the necessary particulars to enable the accused to prepare his defence. As held by the Court of Appeal in Isdori Patrice vs. The Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2007) [2007] TZCA 2 (30 October 2007, TANZLII): "... it is now trite law that the particulars of the charge shall disclose the essential elements or ingredients of the offence. This requirement hinges on the basic rules of criminal law and evidence to the effect that the prosecution has to prove that the accused committed the actus reus of the offence with the necessary mens rea. Accordingly, the particulars in order to give the accused a fair trial, enabling him to prepare his defence, must allege the essential facts of the offence and any intent specifically required by law. " (See also Mussa Mwaikunda v. The Republic [2006] T.L.R. 387) Cementing this principle in Robert Elias Clemence vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 558 (4 June 2025) TanzLII, the Court held thus: " ......... the charge sheet or information being the foundation of the trial, must reasonably alert the accused of the important elements of the offence he is facing to enable him to prepare his defence. This is consistent with the requirement of section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 (the CPA), which provides: "132. Every charge or information shall contain, and shall be sufficient if it contains, a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the accused person is charged, together with such Page 4 of 6

particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the offence charged." The name of the victim is of utmost importance and must therefore be disclosed unless there is an order to the contrary. For, without it, the accused would not know his accuser and would certainly not be in the position to prepare a meaningful defence and exercise his right to be heard. In the present case, the record is silent on whether there were peculiar circumstances or a court order sanctioning the use of acronyms instead of the victim's actual name. The order referred to by Mr. Kesanta was neither availed to the trial court nor mentioned in the proceedings, hence totally alien. In the foregoing, the use of acronyms rendered the particulars incomplete and the charge sheet incurably defective and more importantly, it prejudiced the appellant by abrogating their right to be heard. As for the second irregularity, it is a cardinal principle in our jurisdiction that the evidence in a criminal trial should tally with the particulars of the offence set out in the charge sheet, for it is these particulars that the prosecution is required to prove. Where there are variances, the charge sheet must be amended to bring it in harmony with the evidence (Emmanuel John @ Masanja vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 1059 (10 October 2025); Petro Mlongo and 2 Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2022) [2025] TZCA 142 (28 February 2025); and Emmanuel John @ Masanja vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 1059 (10 October 2025). Cementing this cardinal principle in Petro Mlongo and 2 Others vs Republic (supra), the Court of Appeal held thus: "There is, in this regard, a long and unbroken chain of decisions of the Court which underscore that, whenever there is variance between the charge and the evidence on record, an amendment should be made in terms of section 234 (1) of the CPA to make Page 5 of 6

it in conformity with the evidence on record, failure of which the preferred charge will remain unproved and the accused shall be entitled to acquittal. See, for instance, Francis Thomas Thomas v. Republic (supra), Mohamed Juma @ Mpakama v. Republic [2019] T.L.R. 514 and Abel Masikiti v. Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2015) [2015] TZCA 500 (24 August 2015). Thus, assuming there was an order sanctioning the use of an acronym, the proceedings ought to have tallied with the charge sheet by using the same acronym or by linking it with the different names used by the witnesses to avoid tainting the proceedings with confusion. As for the consequences of the finding above, the jurisprudence holds consistently that an incurably defective charge sheet has the effect of vitiating the proceedings of the trial court by rendering them a nullity. In the foregoing, I allow the appeal, nullify the trial courts' proceedings, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence, and ultimately order that the appellant be released from custody unless he is otherwise held for a lawful cause. DATED and DELIVERED at DODOMA this 5 th day of June 2026. MASABO Page 6 of 6 JUDGE