Republic vs Maganga Saktai Hau (CRIMINAL SESSION NO. 000004823 OF 2026) [2026] TZHC 2986 (3 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT MANYARA CRIMINAL SESSION NO. 000004823 OF 2026 REPUBLIC .............................. COMPLAINANT I APPELLANT I APPLICANT VERSUS MAGANGA SAKTAI H A U .............................. RESPONDENT I DEFENDANT JUDGMENT KAMUZORA, J 26th May & 3rd June, 2026 The above-named accused was arraigned before this Court on one count of murder contrary to sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code [Cap. 16 R.E. 2023]. It was alleged that, on 7th August 2025 at Olpopong’ Village within Kiteto District in Manyara Region, the accused unlawfully caused the death of one Imbori Hando Ginwe (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased”). The information was read over and explained to the accused, whereupon he entered a plea of not guilty. Consequently, the matter proceeded to a full trial. In an attempt to prove its case, the prosecution called fifteen witnesses and tendered six exhibits in evidence. On the other hand, the accused was the sole witness for the defence and did not tender any exhibit. As regards legal representation, Ms. Ashura Mnzava, Senior State Attorney, together with Mr. Leonce Bizimana and Ms. Queen Kassanga, State Page. 1 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

Attorneys, appeared for the Republic. The accused was duly represented by Mr. Joseph Mwita Mniko, learned counsel. Before determining whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused to the requisite standard, it is necessary to set out a brief summary of the evidence adduced by both parties as reflected on the record. During the taking of evidence, I noted that some witnesses referred to Olpopong’ Village as Olpoponyi. I shall, therefore, treat such references as relating to the same village, namely Olpopong’ Village. On 7th August 2025, PW1, Petronila Basso, the deceased’s daughter, who resided some distance away, telephoned the deceased and the two conversed for some time. That was the last communication between them, as subsequent attempts by PW1 to contact the deceased proved unsuccessful since the deceased’s phone was unreachable. PW1 became concerned about the deceased’s wellbeing and consequently informed other relatives. On 10th August 2025, she travelled together with her husband to the deceased’s residence, only to find the house locked and the surroundings suggesting that no one had been there for some time. PW1 recalled that the deceased occasionally visited one Mzee Hau. She therefore proceeded to his house to inquire about the deceased’s whereabouts. However, Mzee Hau informed them that he too had not seen the deceased for some time and had earlier visited the deceased’s house, where he similarly found it locked. PW1 and her husband thereafter returned home, Page. 2 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

although she continued communicating with her siblings in an effort to trace their mother. During the night of 3rd September 2025, PW1 received a telephone call from one Mzee Fisoo informing her of the recovery of human remains at Olpopong’ Village. Consequently, she contacted her brother Marko Basso (PW7), who travelled to Kiteto on the following day, on 4th September 2025. Thereafter, they both and other relatives proceeded to Kiteto Police Station where they met PW8, PF. 20399 Inspector Evarist. PW8 confirmed to PW1 and her relatives that human remains had indeed been recovered and were being kept at the Kiteto Hospital mortuary. PW8 thereafter escorted PW1 and PW7 to Kiteto District Hospital, where they met PW5, Mumuti Dany Mbogoni, a medical doctor, who showed them the recovered remains. According to the evidence of PW1 and PW7, upon being shown the remains together with the dress recovered from the scene of crime, they identified the dress as belonging to the deceased. PW1 stated categorically that whenever she visited her mother, she used to wash her clothes, including the dress recovered at the scene. PW1 and PW7 also identified the remains which consisted of bones of legs and hands, a skull, and a jawbone as those of the deceased, their mother. The basis for such identification was that, the deceased had previously sustained an injury to her right leg and they saw a broken bone. They also the skull which exhibited a gap in the lower teeth consistent with a missing tooth which the deceased had in her lower jaw. Page. 3 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

PW5, the medical doctor, mentioned the same features mentioned by PW1 and PW7 and explained that the broken bone indicated a fracture before death. He however concluded that it was difficult to establish the cause of death because the remains recovered could not assist in establishing the cause of death. Therefore, he collected blood samples from PW1 and extracted two teeth and part of a leg bone from the human remains recovered for the purposes of the DNA profiling. He thereafter prepared a report which was admitted as exhibit PE1. The samples collected by PW5 were kept in separate envelopes and marked accordingly. The envelope containing the leg bone was labelled “A”, the envelope containing the teeth was labelled “B”, and the envelope containing the blood sample of PW1 was labelled “C”. Thereafter, they signing of the chain of custody and sample management forms and the samples remained in the custody of PW5 for safe keeping. On 24th September 2025, the collected samples were handed over to PW8, who conveyed them to the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority (GCLA) in Dodoma for analysis. At the GCLA, Dodoma, PW8 handed over the samples to PW11, Winfrida Benjamini, a Laboratory Technologist. PW11 testified that, upon inspecting both the samples and the sample receipt notification form, she and PW8 signed the said form. The sample receipt notification form was subsequently tendered and admitted in evidence as Exhibit PE2. Thereafter, PW11 transported the samples to the GCLA Headquarters in Dar es Salaam, where she handed them over to PW12, Anna Page. 4 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

I James Chuwa, a chemist with the GCLA, for purposes of DNA profiling analysis. In her testimony, PW12 explained in detail the procedure she employed in conducting DNA profiling on the samples received from PW11. Upon completion of the analysis, she established that the blood sample obtained from PW1 matched the DNA profile extracted from the bone and teeth recovered from the human remains. PW12 tendered the DNA profiling report, which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit PE3. Following the recovery of the remains, which were positively identified as those of the deceased, the question that arose was as to the identity of the perpetrator. PW3, Lazaro Hobe, testified that on 7th August 2025 while resting at his home, he was approached by a motorcyclist engaged in the business of carrying passengers, commonly known as a “bodaboda”. The said motorcyclist was later identified as PW6, Mlema Honhya. According to PW3, the motorcyclist (PW6), was carrying an elderly woman on his motorcycle and the two were searching for a person known as Maganga. PW3 informed them that he did not know any person by that name. He then advised the elderly woman to telephone the said Maganga but her mobile phone had run out of charge, while PW6 had no airtime credit on his phone. Consequently, PW3 offered them the use of his mobile phone to phone Maganga. PW6 inserted the elderly woman’s SIM card into his phone and read Page. 5 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

out the number to PW3, who then telephoned Maganga using his own handset. They were able to speak with the said Maganga, who directed them to turn back as they had already passed the place where he was located. According to PW6, after receiving directions to the location of the said Maganga, he rode back with the elderly woman and eventually met the said Maganga, with whom he left the elderly woman. PW6 identified the accused before the Court as being the same Maganga whom they met on that day. On the same date, on 7th August 2025, the accused telephoned Saumu Adam (PW9), requesting her to provide accommodation for his visitor for the night. PW9 consequently instructed her son, Rajabu Miraji (PW10), to make adjustments and use another room, as Maganga’s visitor was expected to spend the night at their residence. However, the said visitor never arrived at PW9’s house. Later that night, the accused visited PW9’s house and found her in the company of her son, PW10 Rajabu Miraji, and their neighbour, Omary Saning’o (PW4). PW10 and PW4 overheard PW9 asking the accused about the whereabouts of the visitor whom he had earlier indicated would sleep at her house. In response, the accused stated that the visitor had already departed. According to PW9 and PW10, on the following day, on 8th August 2025, the accused went to their home claiming that he had lost his mobile phone and requested PW9 if PW10 could accompany him in searching for it. PW9 acceded to the request and PW10 accompanied the accused in search of his Page. 6 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

lost mobile phone. According to PW10, in that search, they recovered a mobile phone and a pair of black rubber shoes. PW4 also testified that on 8th August 2025, during the night hours, he received a telephone call from the accused requesting him to transport his luggage by motorcycle. PW4 declined the request on the ground that it was already late and he had completed his work for the day. PW4 and PW9 later noticed that the accused had disappeared from the village and only returned approximately one week thereafter. PW4 further testified that on one occasion, he, PW9, and the accused were walking together to the farm. While on their way, they passed near a bushy area whereupon the accused warned them not to pass through that area, stating that there was a foul smell coming from what he described as a dead dog. On 2nd September 2025, PW4 was alone on his way to the farm when he passed near the same area where the accused had previously warned them not to pass. He observed a dog emerging from the same bushy area thus became curious and this prompted him to ascertain why the dog had come from that location. Upon inspecting the bush, PW4 discovered human remains comprising leg bones, hand bones, a jawbone, a skull, and a black dress. Later that evening, upon returning home, PW4 informed PW9 of his discovery. PW9 subsequently proceeded to the said area and confirmed the presence of the human remains. Page. 7 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA I

According to both PW4 and PW9, the accused later went to PW9’s house and found her in the company of PW4. When they questioned him as to why human remains had been discovered at the place he had earlier warned them not to pass, the accused warned them not to disclose the incident to anyone, threatening that otherwise they would die. PW4 and PW9 became suspicious of the accused because he had earlier warned them not to pass through the said area on the pretext that there was a dead dog there, only for human remains to be subsequently discovered at the same location. PW4 also recalled a prior incident in which the accused had informed him that he had killed a person who had allegedly killed his aunt, although PW4 did not at the time believe that the accused was capable of committing murder. Notwithstanding the threats issued by the accused, PW4 decided to report the matter to the police on the following day, on 3rd September 2025. Information concerning the discovery of human remains also spread among the villagers and village leaders, including PW2, Haruni Lesso Kadodo, the Village Executive Officer of Olpopong’ Village. Several people gathered at the scene of crime, including PW10, who recalled that the area where the human remains were discovered was near the location where he and the accused had previously recovered the mobile phone and the pair of shoes while searching for the accused allegedly lost mobile phone. PW10 explained that the human remains were located approximately twenty (20) feet from the place where the mobile phone and shoes had been recovered. Page. 8 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

Police officers, including PW8 and PW15, visited the scene of crime. With the assistance of PW8, PW15 prepared a sketch map of the scene and participated in the collection of the deceased’s remains. The sketch map of the scene of crime was subsequently admitted in evidence as Exhibit PE6. The accused was thereafter arrested and taken to Kiteto Police Station, where he was interrogated by PW14, G. 9659 D/CPL Cleopa. According to PW14, the accused confessed to the offence and a cautioned statement was accordingly recorded. The said cautioned statement was admitted in evidence as Exhibit PE5. Upon the close of the prosecution case, the Court revisited the evidence adduced and, being satisfied that a prima facie case had been established against the accused, called upon him to enter his defence. As earlier stated, the accused was the sole witness for the defence. In his defence, the accused readily admitted that he knew the deceased. He explained that his niece (his sister’s daughter), was married to the deceased’s son, namely Marko Basso. He also admitted knowing both PW4 and PW9 as his neighbours, although he alleged that there existed grudges between them arising out of a boundary dispute. The accused testified that he was arrested on 5th September 2025 and taken to the police station without being informed of the reasons for his arrest. He categorically denied having killed the deceased and maintained that he had been falsely implicated in the offence due to personal animosity and grudges harboured against him by PW4, PW9, and Marko Basso, who had been Page. 9 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

married to his deceased niece one Kadogoo. He further alleged that his niece died after being assaulted by Marko Basso upon refusing to sign documents intended to facilitate the sale of a farm. The accused therefore prayed that this Court find him not guilty of the charge of murder. Having revisited the evidence on record as adduced by both the prosecution and the defence, the issue for determination is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused to the requisite standard in criminal proceedings. As stated above, the accused person stands charged with one count of murder contrary to sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code. The essential elements of the offence under the said provisions have been discussed in a number of judicial authorities, including the case of Magimbi Mzini vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 1122 (15 October 2025) at page 14-15 where the Court of Appeal held as follows; To establish a charge of murder, the prosecution must establish the following four essential elements; one, that, a person has died; two , that, the death was unnatural; three, that, the accused person was responsible for the killing; and four, that, the killing was carried out with malice aforethought From the foregoing authority, it is settled that for the offence of murder to be established, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the above four elements. Beginning with the first two elements on whether a person has died and whether the death was unnatural, there is ample evidence on record to Page. 10 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

establish that Imbori Hando Ginwe is deceased. Despite the inconsistencies noted in the sketch map, which were clearly highlighted during cross- examination, there is cogent oral evidence from the prosecution witnesses indicating that human remains, together with a black dress, were recovered at Olpopong’ Village. PW1 and PW7, being the children of the deceased, positively identified the dress allegedly found at the crime scene together with human remains as belonging to their mother. They further identified the remains as those of their mother on account of distinctive physical features, including an injury to her right leg, as well as the condition of the skull, which revealed a gap in the lower teeth consistent with a missing tooth previously suffered by the deceased. The DNA profiling analysis conducted by PW12 at the GCLA revealed that the blood sample taken from PW1 matched with the teeth and a piece of bone recovered from the remains. The findings of the DNA profiling thus established a biological relationship between PW1 and the human remains recovered from the scene, thereby supporting the conclusion that Imbori Hando Ginwe is deceased. As to whether the death resulted from unnatural causes, PW5 testified that it was difficult to ascertain the exact cause of death, as what was recovered from the scene consisted only of skeletal remains, which were insufficient for determining the precise cause of death. However, there is evidence that the deceased was found at a location away from her residence Page. 11 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

and that her remains were discovered abandoned in a bush. This circumstance, when taken as a whole, suggests that the death was not natural. As to the third element on whether the accused person was responsible for the death of the deceased, the prosecution case is largely circumstantial, there being no eye witness to the actual commission of the offence. In order to justify a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt. Therefore, in order for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, the prosecution must establish that its evidence satisfies the settled principles governing its admissibility and reliability, as set out in various judicial authorities, including the case of Jimmy Runangaza vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 159 "B " of 2017) [2018] TZCA 188 (27 August 2018), page 9 to 10. The Court of Appeal remarked that: - “In order for the circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, it must point irresistibly to the accused's guilt. (See Simon Musoke v. Republic, [1958] EA 715). Sarkar on Evidence, 15th Ed. 2003 Report Vol. 1 page 63 also emphasized that on cases which rely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following three tests which are:

1. the circumstances from which an inference of guilty is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
2. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and
3. the circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so, complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human Page. 12 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

probability the crime was committed by the accused and no one else." I shall therefore consider the above principles in determining whether the circumstantial evidence adduced in this case irresistibly points to the guilt of the accused person. The circumstantial evidence in the present case is founded on three limbs. The first limb is based on the doctrine of the last person seen with the deceased. The second limb is founded on the alleged threats made to witnesses, PW4 and PW9. The third limb is premised on the accused’s cautioned statement, Exhibit PE5. Starting with the doctrine of the last person seen with the deceased, it is a settled principle that where there is evidence that an accused person was the last person seen with the deceased alive, a presumption may arise that he caused the death of the deceased, unless he offers a plausible and reasonable explanation to the contrary. That was the holding of the Court of Appeal in the case of John Mbatira @ M. Tuke & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 354 (26 March 2026) at page 19. It is understandable that being the last person seen with the deceased does not, in itself, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. However, where the evidence points to no other person apart from the accused, the Court may properly draw an inference that the accused, being the last person seen with the deceased in circumstances of suspicion, was responsible for the death of the deceased. See also, the decision in the case of Emmanuel Agaton Ndunguru vs Republic (Criminal Page. 13 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

Appeal No. 841 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 325 (28 March 2025) at page 11 where the Court of Appeal held "... the last person to be seen with the deceased alive does not by itself necessarily lead to an inference that the accused person committed the crime unless it unerringly points the finger to the accused person's guilt and where conviction of the accused person is solely based on the principle of the last person to be seen with the deceased person alive, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the incriminating facts and the circumstances linking the accused with the crime.” [Emphasis added]. From the above decision, the prosecution is required to prove the incriminating facts and circumstances linking the accused to the commission of the offence. The question for determination, therefore, is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing incriminating facts sufficient to lead this Court to conclude that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased. The accused denied not only having killed the deceased but also having seen her during the period she was alleged to have disappeared. This amounts to a categorical denial of the allegation that he was the last person seen with the deceased prior to her death. On the other hand, the prosecution called two key witnesses in this regard. PW3 testified that he was approached by a motorcyclist, PW6, who was carrying the deceased in search of a person known as Maganga. PW3 assisted the deceased to communicate with the said Maganga. PW6 testified that he rode the deceased to a place where Maganga had directed them to Page. 14 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

meet at Olpopong’ Village and that he left the deceased with the accused person. From that moment onwards, no any other person was shown to have seen the deceased alive until her remains were later recovered at Olpopong’ Village, where the accused resides. Since the deceased was not residing at Olpopong’ village and since PW6 testified that he left the deceased with the accused at Olpopong’ Village, coupled with the fact that the deceased’s remains were later recovered within the same village, this gives rise to an inference that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased alive. In addition, having carefully considered the record, it is apparent that the prosecution case is not solely founded on the doctrine of the last person seen with the deceased. There exists other circumstantial evidence which, according to the prosecution, corroborates that principle, and they shall be addressed under the second and third limbs of the circumstantial evidence. With regard to the second limb, regarding the threat imposed to some of the witnesses, there is evidence from PW4, PW9 and PW10, all of whom were admittedly neighbours of the accused at Olpopong’ Village. According to PW9, on the same date on which PW6 stated that he left the deceased with the accused, the accused telephoned her requesting accommodation for a female visitor. PW9 accordingly instructed her son, PW10, to make arrangements by vacating a room so that it could be availed for the said visitor. Page. 15 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

At night time, the accused passed at PW9’s house, and in the presence of PW4, PW9 asked him about the visitor he intended to take to her house but the accused responded that the visitor had already left. On the next day, the accused went to PW9 ‘s house complaining that he had lost his mobile phone. Being accompanied by PW10 they were able to recover the mobile phone together with the shoes. On one occasion, while PW4, PW9 and the accused were proceeding to the farm, they passed near a bushy area. The accused warned them not to use that route again, stating that there was a bad smell of a dead dog. Days later, human remains were discovered at the very same place where the accused had cautioned PW4 and PW9 not to pass, on the pretext that there was a dead dog. Upon questioning the accused regarding the discovery, he allegedly threatened PW4 and PW9, warning them not to disclose the matter to anyone. PW4 recalled the threat in the following words: “ Wee kwanza kimya. Mkija mkisema au mkizungumza mtakufa wote, au nitakaposikia neno lolote nitafungulia mbwa zangu," meaning, "You should keep quiet. If you speak or say anything, you will all die, and if I hear any word about it, I will release my dogs on you.” PW9 on the other hand, recalled the threat in the following words; “Mnyamaze kimya hivyo hivyo, mkisema nitafungulia mbwa wangu mtaisha wote”, meaning; “Keep quiet and remain silent. If you speak about it, I will unleash my dogs on you and all of you will be finished.” Page. 16 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

The accused raised a defence that he had grievances with his neighbours arising from a boundary dispute over farm land. However, he failed to adduce any credible evidence to substantiate the existence of such a dispute. He never informed this court if such dispute was ever reported or dealt with by any responsible authorities. In the circumstances, the allegation appears to be an afterthought. This, in the Court’s view, suggests that the threats issued by the accused were instigated by his own wrongdoing. It is unlikely that he would have issued such threats had he not been responsible for the death of the person whose remains were later discovered in the bush. Accordingly, the second limb of circumstantial evidence is established, thereby reinforcing the first limb to the effect that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased and that he caused her death before abandoning her body in the bush. The warning issued to PW4 and PW9 not to pass near the bush and the threat not to disclose the discovery of human remains are consistent with an intention to conceal the presence of the human remains, which the accused knew of its existence. Turning to the third limb, which is based on the accused’s cautioned statement, the accused objected to the statement, claiming that he was merely forced to sign it and that he did not record it. His retraction of the cautioned statement necessitated a trial within a trial, upon which the statement was admitted in evidence as Exhibit PE5 after the Court was satisfied that the requisite legal procedures for recording and tendering the Page. 17 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

statement had been duly complied with. The law is settled that, where the confession is retracted, the same requires corroboration. But the court may act upon uncorroborated retracted confession if it is satisfied that, it contains nothing but the truth. See, the case of Sami Nzalia @ Kisenga vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 137 (25 February 2026) at page 13 where the Court of Appeal observed that; “ Nevertheless , the law says that a retracted confession needs careful handling. Corroboration is desirable, but it is not always required. A court may convict on a retracted confession if it is satisfied that the confession is true and was made voluntarily. ” See also, the case of Geofrey Kitundu @ Nalogwa & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2018) [2021] TZCA 3 (2 February 2021) at page 16. Upon perusal of the statement, it appears that it was recorded pursuant to either section 58 or section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap. 20 R.E. 2023]. The procedures prescribed under these provisions are distinct and serve different purposes. Section 58 applies where a person, whilst being interviewed by a police officer for the purpose of ascertaining whether he has committed an offence, makes a confession relating to that offence. In such circumstances, the statement is required to be recorded in a question-and-answer format. Section 59, on the other hand, applies where a person under restraint informs a police officer of his wish to make a statement. Such a statement Page. 18 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

may be written by the suspect himself or recorded by a police officer on his behalf, but it is ordinarily recorded in narrative form. Given that the procedures under sections 58 and 59 are materially different, the cautioned statement recorded from the accused, although admitted in evidence, raises a legitimate concern as to whether it can safely be relied upon as a basis for conviction. In my view, having regard to the matters noted above and the fact that the statement was subsequently retracted, it cannot, standing alone, sustain a conviction unless there exists independent corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the offence charged. Having duly warned myself of the danger of placing reliance upon a retracted confession, particularly in light of the legal concerns identified above, I nevertheless find that the statement is deserving of some evidential weight. Upon considering the applicable principles relating to corroboration and assessing the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the statement contains material particulars which bear the hallmarks of truth and are therefore worthy of belief. From cautioned statement (Exhibit PE5), the accused gave a detailed account of what transpired on the material day of the incident. The statement further indicates that, following the death of his niece, the accused harboured an intention of revenge. In July 2025, the accused was telephoned by the deceased who was searching for her son, Marko Basso (PW7), who had left home without notice. The accused, allegedly harbouring an intention to take Page. 19 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

revenge, informed her that her son was at Olpopong’ Village, thereby inducing her to travel there. The accused and the deceased continued to communicate until 7th August 2025, when the deceased ultimately decided to travel to Olpopong’ Village in order to meet her son. While awaiting her arrival, the accused received a telephone call from an unknown number informing him that an elderly woman was looking for him. He directed the caller to his location, after which the deceased was brought to him by a motorcyclist. After speaking with the motorcyclist for some time, the accused left with the deceased and proceeded to his home. He further telephoned his neighbour requesting accommodation for the deceased, ostensibly to ensure that she remained until nightfall, as part of an alleged plan to delay her departure until darkness set in. Later in the evening, the accused left with the deceased, purporting to take her to her son. However, along the way, he allegedly strangled her and caused her death, thereafter removing her body from the road. He later returned and dragged the body into a bushy area. The remainder of the accused’s narrative is consistent with the testimonies of PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW9, particularly from the point at which the deceased met PW6, the motorcyclist, and their subsequent movements leading to their encounter with PW3. It also corroborates the evidence relating to the accused’s request to PW9 for accommodation for a visitor, as well as the issue of the missing mobile phone, which PW10 testified was later Page. 20 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

recovered approximately twenty (20) feet from the place where the human remains were discovered. Further, the accused’s account is consistent with the evidence of PW4 and PW9 regarding the warning issued by the accused not to pass through the area he claimed had the smell of a dead dog, which turned out to be the very location where the human remains were later recovered. In view of the totality of the evidence, the accused’s cautioned statement is sufficiently corroborated by other independent evidence on record and is therefore deserving of consideration, the Court being satisfied that it contains elements of truth. This statement, when considered together with the doctrine of the last person seen with the deceased, which has been firmly established, and the threats made to PW4 and PW9 after they questioned the accused, forms a complete chain of circumstantial evidence which irresistibly points to the accused as the perpetrator of the offence of murder. The prosecution evidence, when viewed in its totality, proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was not only the last person seen with the deceased but was also responsible for causing her death. In the premises, the third element of the offence is duly established. On the final element of malice aforethought, the same is established by the conduct of the accused person before, during and after the killing. Prior to the commission of the offence, the prosecution evidence discloses both motive and deliberate conducts leading to the death of the Page. 21 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA I

deceased. The accused, in his defence, admitted that he suspected PW7, the deceased’s son, of having caused the death of his niece. This corroborated his cautioned statement showing that, in response to the death of his niece, the accused harboured an intention of revenge. The accused is shown to have lured the deceased to go to Olpopong’ Village on the false assurance that her son was present there, despite knowing that this was not the case. He also made arrangement for accommodation through PW9, thereby creating the impression that the deceased would be safely hosted even if she will be late. This conduct, suggest a calculated plan designed to delay the deceased until nightfall, thereby facilitating the execution of his intention. In the circumstances, the accused’s alleged motive to avenge the death of his niece, coupled with his prior conducts, points towards a premeditated intention to cause death. The accused’s intention during the commission of the offence is evidenced by his conduct killing the deceased to death. The evidence on record indicates that the accused grabbed the deceased by the neck and strangled her while aware that the neck is a vulnerable part of the human body, the application of force to which is capable of causing grievous harm or death. His intention after the incident is further demonstrated by his conduct aimed at concealing the offence. Following the killing, he is said to have dragged the body from the roadside and later returned to move it further into Page. 22 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

the bush in an attempt to conceal it. He also warned PW4 and PW9 not to pass near the area where he had abandoned the body, and subsequently issued threats to them after they discovered the human remains at the same location. All these actions, taken together, demonstrate a clear intention on the part of the accused to conceal the offence and its commission. In the premises, the accused’s conduct cumulatively establishes malice aforethought. In that regard, the accused’s defence that he was charged due to an existing feud between himself and PW4, PW7, and PW9 is unsubstantiated. I find that the accused’s assertions amount not only to an afterthought but are also devoid of evidential basis for the following reasons. First, the said witnesses were not cross-examined on any alleged grudges or hostility between themselves and the accused. Secondly, no cogent evidence was adduced by the accused to establish the existence of any land or boundary dispute between him and PW4 and PW9. Although his evidence made reference to PW7 in relation to the alleged prior incident concerning the death of his niece Kadogoo, such history is not directly justifying his innocence, particularly in view of the fact that there were other witnesses to the offence apart from PW7. Even in the absence of PW7’s evidence, the remaining evidence on record still points to no one other than the accused as the perpetrator of murder. Page. 23 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA

In the premises, I find that the accused’s allegations are not meritorious and do not raise any reasonable defence capable of displacing the strong prosecution evidence, which irresistibly points to the accused as guilty of the murder. Based on the foregoing analysis, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused MAGANGA SAKTAI HAU is therefore found guilty and convicted of the offence of murder contrary to sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code [Cap. 16 R.E. 2023]. Dated at MANYARA this 3rd of June 2026 . D. C KAMUZORA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 24 Hon.. DEVOTHA KAMUZORA