The Republic vs Clemensi Ezekiel Pamani @ Chapali and Others (Criminal Sessions Case No. 6787 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 2981 (4 June 2026)
Judgment
1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DODOMA SUB REGISTRY) AT DODOMA SITTING AT SINGIDA CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 6787 OF 2025 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS
- CLEMENSI EZEKIEL PAMANI @ CHAPALI
- JUMA SHAWOO
- STEVEN MANICHE
- EZELEDA WILSON @JUMA RULING ON SENTENCE Date of the last Order: 04/06/2026 Date of the Ruling: 04/06/ 2026 LONGOPA, J.: The offenders, Clemensi Ezekiel Pamani @ Chapali, Juma Shawoo and Ezeleda Wilson @ Juma pleaded guilty to the offence of Manslaughter Contrary to Section 195 and 198 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022 having been arraigned before this Court.
2 | P a g e The facts of the case were as follows: All the offenders on 31/03/2024 at Muhanga village, Ipande Ward, Itigi Division within Manyoni District in Singida Region caused unlawful death of Mwaluko Ezekiel Pamani. The offenders and the victim had been drinking at local brew club prior to the third offender and her husband, the victim leaving the area. However, on the way the victim commenced abusing the third offender by beating her. It was at that juncture when the 1 st and 2 nd offender arrived, intervened by hitting the victim with a stick on heard and beating the victim. The third offender fled the scene to her home for safety leaving the 1 st and 2 nd offenders at the scene with victim while fighting. It was in such cause of a fight where the victim collapsed, carried to his farm by the 1 st and 2 nd offender and disposed off the body by burying it in unused well. Some months later on, the third offender reported and when the 1 st and 2 nd offenders were confronted in the interrogation, they admitted that in course of fight the victim lost his life and only human skeletons were found at the scene. Upon finding the offenders guilty and entered conviction on plea of guilty, this court invited the learned counsel for the parties to address
3 | P a g e the court on the appropriate sentence to be impose against the three offenders. Mr. Anyimike Mwamsiku, learned State Attorney was the one in advancing the aggravating factors for the Prosecution/Republic while the defence on mitigation factors enjoyed the services of Ms. Zawadi Juma Kawega, Ms. Sheila Ramadhani Ally and Mr. Cosmas Luambano, learned advocates represented the respective offenders. In articulation of the aggravating factors, Mr. Anyimike Mwamsiku, learned advocate stated that th ere were no criminal records for each of the three convicts. However, he prayed that this court be pleased to sanctions the offenders severely, on account of the following reasons, namely: One, the offenders used a weapon namely stick to hit the victim. Sticks are not meant for beating. Two, the beating in sensitive areas where the victim was beaten including head resulting to death. Third, the excessive force that was used to manhandle a single person. Four, the manner of commission of the offence by causing death, dumping the body on the well without reporting anywhere makes the aggravating the sentence. Five, the offenders have terminated the dreams of the victim including those who depended on the victim.
4 | P a g e On the other hand, Ms. Zawadi Kawega, learned advocate for the 1 st Offender prayed for leniency on the following reasons: One, the convict was a first offender with no criminal records for any previous criminal record. Two, the convict pleaded guilty to the offence before this court. Third, the convict cooperated with law enforcement agencies throughout including police. Four, the offender was aged 49 years thus he had role to pay to this nation. Five, the offender has dependants including a wife and seven children, the last one with three years old thus he is depended by others. Six, the convict has served the court with time and resources for not calling witnesses. Seven, the had been in remand prison for about two years now. That should be accounted for in course of sentencing. Eight, the convict had stomach problems that need medical attention. Nine, the offender was remorseful to his action. Also, Ms. Sheila Ally, learned advocate for 2 nd Offender stated that this was a proper case for lenient sentencing on account of: One, the convict was a first offender with no previous criminal records. Two, he righty pleaded guilty to the offence. Third, he cooperated with law enforcement agencies by confessing at police station. Four, the convict
5 | P a g e was remorseful to the action that led to death of the victim. Five, the convict has dependants including nine children whereas six of them still need maintenance as well as a wife and elderly mother who is visually impaired as the convict’s father passed on in 1981 thus the family depend on him. Six, the convict was aged sixty years suffering from chest pain for long time. Seven, the convict did save time for the court as no witnesses were called. We pray for lenience. Eight, he had stayed for about two years in custody thus he deserves leniency. Lastly, in respect of the third offender, Mr. Cosmas Luambano premised the mitigation factors for lenient sentence on three angles alone. First, the time spent in remand prison for one year and 10 months thus she had leant a lesson. Second, the role of the 3 rd offender was minimal as she did not participate save for failure to report only. Comparatively, her role falls under low lever Manslaughter thus deserve the very minimum sentence. Third, the 3 rd offender is a woman of 47 years, with five children as the father of the children died as victim in this matter. Those children have none to take care for them. It was the
6 | P a g e learned advocates submission that on account of those aspects the court ought to consider for leniency of the 3 rd offender during sentencing. Having heard rivalry submissions by the parties with regard to appropriate sentence, this court is enjoined to determine an appropriate sentence thereto. Sentencing of an offender involves the balancing of interests of various competing groups. In the case of David Gamata & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2014) [2015] TZCA 362 (7 December 2015) (TANZLII), at page 19, the Court held that: However, such a punishment had to be within the four corners of the sentencing powers of the trial court, however, abhorrent their conduct was. As correctly observed by one Queensland judge: "The essence of sentencing is the balancing of interests within the framework of law. The interests to be balanced are the community, the accused, the accused's family, the victim, and the victim's family. The balance is easier said than done. It is constrained by the framework of law- this is the public misconception of the process; it is more difficult than the public thinks. ”
7 | P a g e Also, the similar position was reiterated in the case of Maro Joseph @ Chacha vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2021) [2025] TZCA 62 (24 February 2025) (TANZLII), at page 13, where the Court lucid noted that: It is noteworthy that, sentencing is a balancing act between aggravating and mitigating factors as well as the need of the community in one side and that of the convict on the other. As such, the Manual comes in to balance the said factors. In other words, it serves as a guide to judicial officers when exercising their discretion in sentencing in order to have consistent and proportional sentencing process within the discretion permitted by law. In the instant case, the 1 st and 2 nd offenders were engaged in a fight with the victim in order to admonish the victim’s domestic violence against the 3 rd offender. Also, though a stick was used to commit an offence of manslaughter, such weapon is not lethal and there is nothing on record that the victim was inflicted with severe wounds whatsoever. The total of facts on record reveals the level of manslaughter in the circumstance of this case would be medium level falling with 4 years
8 | P a g e to 10 years imprisonment. That applies to the 1 st and 2 nd offenders only as the ones who were actively involved in the fight. The death occurred and that body of the victim was not recovered except human skeletons after some months of the incident. It is considered that eight (8) years imprisonment would be considered a good starting point prior to considered of both aggravating and mitigating factors. Both prosecution and defence are in concurrence that all the offenders are first offenders as there are no criminal records at all regarding previous convictions and the offenders readily pleaded guilty. That alone would entitle both the 1 st and second offender a benefit of reduction of two years and two months from the envisaged penalty. This is in line with the principle in Frodius Protazi vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 194 (13 March 2025) (TANZLII), at page 7, the Court succinctly held that: From the cited decisions, the settled position of the law frowns on imposing excessive sentence to remorseful first offenders who have readily pleaded guilty to the charges. Thus, having considered the appellant being repentant on what he
9 | P a g e did on account of having pleaded guilty and being a first offender who had remained behind bars for more than two years, with respect, it was incumbent on the learned High Court Judge to consider material factors which normally entitle an offender to leniency. Had the learned High Court Judge considered the mitigating factors, he would have found that, the appellant was entitled to much more lenient punishment than the imposed sentence of thirty years. Since it is evident that, the learned High Court Judge acted on a wrong principle having overlooked material factors to wit the mitigating circumstances, this in our considered view warrants the interference by the Court to do what the trial court ought to have done. In the upshot, we agree with Mr. Chamani that, the appellant indeed deserved the mercy of the court and lenient sentence. Consequently, since the appellant has stayed behind bars for about five years, we think the term served is sufficient to warrant his reformation. On the other hand, both the 1 st and 2 nd offenders remained in remand custody for about one year and ten months. Such time should also be deducted from the sentence. It is settled law that proper sentencing would also consider the time spent in remand prison in
10 | P a g e favour of the convict. Failure to do so would amount to considering that sentence as improper. In the case of Issa Ihale vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2016) [2020] TZCA 291 (5 June 2020) (TANZLII), at page 15, the Court stated the position as: Consequences of failure to consider time spent in remand prison was discussed with lucidity in the case of Nyanzala Madaha vs Republic , Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2005 (unreported), which was cited with approval in the case of Agnes Julius vs Republic , Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2010, (unreported) rightly cited by Mr. Karumuna in which the Court observed that:- " Failure to take into account the time that an accused (who has all along been admitting his offence) has spent in remand custody would amount to unduly punishing a remorseful accused on account of the weaknesses in our criminal justice system ." We concur with the legal position set above.
11 | P a g e As such, all the time spent in remand custody as a rule is deductible in sentencing the offender to ensure well-functioning of the criminal justice system. For the 1 st and 2 nd offenders having deducted total of four (4) years, it is settled view of this court that the remaining period of four (4) is appropriate for both offenders to serve in order to reform from their conduct of applying excessive force in admonishing the victim leading to death. Conversely, the 3 rd offender deserves a more lenient sentence in this case. It is on record that the 3 rd offender was only a victim of domestic violence from the deceased and took no active role at all in the commission of the manslaughter in question. Remaining silent for some months after learning missing of her husband is what raise eyebrow and inclusion of the 3 rd offender in this case. Having considered of all the circumstances of the matter in this case, this Court is of the considered view that omission by the 3 rd offender to timeously report the missing victim amounts to low level of
12 | P a g e the manslaughter in the scale which attracts absolute discharge as the lowest sentence to four years imprisonment as the highest sentence. As such, it is this court position that the 3 rd offender be sentenced to serve a conditional discharge for period of twelve months. At that time of the conditional discharge, the 3 rd offender should not commit any criminal offence otherwise she would face custodial sentence. It is this court position that these respective sentences would serve the interest of justice in the circumstances of the case in line with applicable principles in sentencing as demonstrated in the case of It is imperative, at this point, to reiterate that it is settled that an appellate court's role in sentencing is so circumscribed. In Fatuma Nurudini v. Republic , Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2013 [2014] TZCA 188 [28 October 2014; TanzLII], the Court, citing its earlier decision in Patrick Matabaro @ Siima & Another v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2007 (unreported), stated as follows: "It is settled law that art appellate court has a limited role in sentencing. The
13 | P a g e governing principles that must be taken into consideration are as follows: - (i ) Sentencing is a function which the legislature entrusts to the trial Judge (or magistrate, as the case may be ); (ii) The sentencing decision is a decision made in the exercise of a discretion ; (iii) An appeal court may only intervene where the exercise of the sentencing discretion is vitiated by error, such that there has been no lawful exercise of that discretion; (iv) Then an appeal court can decide for itself what the sentence should have been." At this juncture, this Court is fortified that in compliance to its discretionary sentencing jurisdiction, it is appropriate for the 1 st and 2 nd offender to be sentenced to serve a four (4) years imprisonment each and for the 3 rd offender to be sentenced serve a conditional discharge for twelve months (12) months in line with provisions of Section 38(1) and (2) of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022. Now therefore, Clemensi Ezekiel Pamani @ Chapali and Juma Shawoo are sentenced to serve four (4) years imprisonment each from
14 | P a g e todate and Ezeleda D/O Wilson @Juma is sentenced to a Conditional Discharge for period of 12 months from todate. It is so ordered. DATED and DELIVERED at Dodoma this 4 th day of June 2026. E.E. LONGOPA JUDGE 04/06/2026.