Juma Salehe Njuki vs Republic (DC. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18287 OF 2025) [2026] TZHC 2991 (2 June 2026)

; q IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MOSHI AT MOSHI DC. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18287 OF 2025 JUMA SALEHE NJUKI VERSUS REPUBLIC JUDGMENT 28" April & 02"dJune,2026 A.P.KILIMI. J.: Juma Salehe Njuki was arraignedat the District Court of Same at Same (herein the 'trial court') for the offence of Unlawful possession of Government Trophy, contrary to section 86(1) (2) (c) (iii) of the Wildlife Conservation Act Cap 283 of the Revised Laws read together with paragraph14 of the First Schedule to and section 57(1) and 60(2) of the Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act Cap 200 of the Revised Laws. . At the trial court, it was alleged by prosecution that on 18th day of December, 2024 at Kizungo area within Same District in Kilimanjaro region, the appellant was found in possession of Government trophy to wit; three (3) live Helmeted Vulturine Guinea Fowl commonly known as 'kanga' each valued at USD 150 total valued USD 450 equivalentto Tshs 1,065,933/= the property of the Government of United Republic of Tanzania without permit from the Director of Wildlife. After a trial interparty, the trial court found the appellant guilty for the offence charged and he was convicted to serve twenty (20) years’ imprisonment. Page 1 of 6

The appellant being aggrieved with the trial court decision and orders above has raised seven (7) grounds which can conveniently be paraphrased as follows; one; the trial court failed to note that the inventory form Exh PE 3 was illegally procured,tendered and admitted as evidence.Second; the trial court failed to note that at the time of disposal of exhibit appellant was not present hence denied right to be heard. Three;, the trial court did not comply to section 57 (3) (b) and (a) of the criminal procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E 2022, as there was no certificateor signed as depicted in Exhibit PE4. Four; the trial court erred in law by failing to note that the chain of custody of the alleged seized helmeted vulturine guinea fowls was irretrievably broken. Five; the trial court erred in law when failed to make scrutiny and evaluate the evidence adduced hence ended on wrong conclusion which convicted the appelIQnt. Sixth; the trial court strayed into error of law when she used weak, contradictory inconsistent, uncorroborated,incredibleand unreliable prosecution evidence to convict the appellant, and seven; the trial court failed to note that the charge against the appellant was never proved beyond reasonable doubts. Before I delve into the above grounds, I find apt to narrate brief facts giving rise to this appeal, as can be gleaned from the trial courts' record as follows:- on 18th December 2024 during the evening hours, Christopher Mahande (PW5) a park ranger at Mkomazi National Park, was on patrol together with fellow rangers in the Kizungo area within Same District. During the patrol, they saw the appellant carrying a bag which raised their suspicion. They stopped and searched him and allegedly found him in possession of three live guinea fowls (kanga). Upon being questioned, the appellant failed to produce any permit or licence authorizing possession of the said wildlife trophies. Subsequentlythe appellant was arrested and said trophies seized, he was then taken to Same Police Station. On the same day, the appellant was interrogated by (PW4) one Benjamini Temanya Edward and his caution statement was recorded. On 19th December 2024, Amedeus Jonathan Chitaula (PW2) a wildlife officer conducted valuation of the seized trophies which was at the value of Tshs 1,065,900.33/= and lastly PW2 preparedan inventory form Page 2 of 6

pursuant to a court order which was admitted as Exhibit PE3.In his defence, the appellant denied to be found in possession of the trophies. He stated that he was hired by one Maasai man to construct a fence in order to prevent cattle from entering a farm. According to him, after completion of the work on 17th December 2024, they agreed inspection of the work to be the next day. On the very day after intended inspection, the masai asked him to accompanyhim to collect the money and while they were walking, Wildlife officers arrived in a motor vehicle. The Maasai man pointed at the appellant and informed the officers that he was the person he had referred to them. The appellant was thereafter arrested and taken to Same Police Station. After a full trial, appellant was found guilty and sentenced as depicted above. At the hearing of this appeal, appellant appearedhimself and prayed this court to consider his grounds of appeal to find that he was illegally convicted, whereas the respondent who had the service of Ms. Wanda Msafiri learned State Attorney, responded the appellant’sgrievances by written submissions. I have considered the grounds presented,the trial court records and the submissions from the respondent;the issue for determination is whether the appeal at hand has merits. In the outset the Ms. Msafiri conceded with the appellant appeal by supporting it with grounds number one and two. She expounded that although PW2 said the appellant was present at the time the order for disposal was sought, but the record is silent on whether the appellant was asked for any comment, remark or objectionon the said exhibit, thus by so remaining it infer that the appellant was not heard before the said disposal which is contrary to the legal procedure. Learned State Attorned urged me to be guided by the cases of Buluka Leken Ole Ndidai & Another vs Republic (CriminalAppeal No. 459 of 2020) [2024] TZCA 116 (21 February 2024); Mohamed Juma @ Mpakama vs Republic (CriminalAppeal No. 385 of 2017) [2019] TZCA 518 (27 February 2019) and Mosi s/o Chacha @ Iranga & Another vs Republic Page 3 of 6

(CriminalAppeal No. 508 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 598 (22 October 2021)( Both found on TanzLII). I have given due considerationof the records from the trial court coupled with inventory form (exhibit P:3) admitted at the trial court, I do agree with the respondent that there were irregularities vitiating appellant’sright, although it is evident that appellant was present, but the order to dispose the said exhibits was issued and the records of the trial court are silent as to whether the appellant was accorded right to say anything at the disposal of the alleged trophy. In Buluka Leken Ole Ndidai & Another (supra) the Court laid down the procedures to be followed before a Magistrate can order the perishable goods to be disposed. The Court stated thus: "...it will be sufficient for a magistrate before whom an order to dispose a perishable Government trophy or trophies, to make such order, provided that; one, the prayer to issue the order to dispose of perishable exhibits may be made by the investigator or the prosecution informally before a magistrate in chambers; two, if the order is likely to be relied upon in any future court proceedings against any suspect, that suspect must be present at the time of making the prayer and; three, the suspect must be asked as to his comments, remarks or objections as regards the perishable exhibits sought to be destroyed. Four, if that suspect does not make any comments, remarks or objections,the magistrate shall record the fact that, the suspect was invited to make any comments, remarks or objections, but he opted to make none. Page 4 of 6 8

Five, if the suspect makes any comments, remarks or objections, they shall be recorded as appropriate either on the reverse side of the Inventory Form or on any separate piece of paper or papers and shall be signed by the magistrate. " Therefore, guided by the above authority, since the record is silent on the comment or objection from the appellant. I am constrained to agree with the appellant in these two grounds of appeal that the trial court failed to note that the appellant was required to be heard on whether he object or otherwise before the order to dispose the trophy was issued. Next point to be considered, is what is the effect of not giving the appellant right to be heard in the circumstancesstated above. I am mindful sometimes prosecution may file an application for disposal of the exhibit, however in this matter witnesses said nothing about that procedureand which applicationfiled at the trial court to that effect. Thus, whether the trophies were disposed being alive or dead, the right to be heard before such order remains paramountto the appellant. In Juma Mohamed @ Mpakama (supra), the court observed that, the Inventory Form cannot be proved against the appellant if he was not given the opportunity to be heard. Therefore, I hereby expunge exhibit P3 from the record. Therefore, since the expunged exhibit stands for the alleged disposed trophies, in my considered opinion there is nothing which substantiate the appellant guilty of possessionof the said governmenttrophies. (See Buluka Leken Ole Ndidai & Another (supra) at page 16. For the forgoing I find these two grounds have merit hence sustained. In the circumstance, having considered the allowed first and second ground as above, I am of the settled view that these grounds are sufficient to dispose of the appeal and I find no need to consider and determine the remaining grounds of appeal, otherwise doing so would amount to an academic exercise. Page 5 of 6

Having so stated, I find that this appeal has merit and it is hereby allowed. Consequently, I proceed to quash the decision and orders of the trial court. The appellant is to be released from custody forthwith unless he is otherwise lawfully held. It is so ordered. DATED at MOSHI this day Of 2nd June, 2026. >=, A. P. KILIMI JUDGE Court:- Judgment delivered today the 2-d day of June, 2026 in the presence of the Appellant and Ms. Wanda Msafiri learned State Attorney for the Respondent . Sgd: A. P. KILIMI JUDGE 02/06/2026 i Page 6 of 6