Republic vs Saimon Sylivester Ayuke (Criminal Session Case No. 15557of 2025) [2026] TZHC 2559 (25 May 2026)

1 N THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA [DAR ES SALAAM SUB REGISTRY] AT D AR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO 15557/2025 REF 202506252000015557 REPUBLIC VERSUS SAIMON SYLIVESTER AYUKE JUDGEMENT: 30 th April & 25 TH May 2026. KIREKIANO , J: Before his demise, t he deceased in this case , Maulid Omary, a 45 - year - old man, resided at Mburahati NHC area in Dar es Salaam . H e happened to work as a driver; his career did not end well. T o win his daily bread he ha d to collect used plastic bottles at the area. His life came to an end brutally on 7/01/2025 at midnight . His body was retrieved from a sewage pit at the residence of the accused , Mburahati NHC . I n what appeared to be night of horror his body was found with a severe cut wound at his neck . The police thus believed that his death was not natural but caused by an unlawful act. Upon arrest and investigation, the accused Saimoni Sylivester Ayuke was dragged to this court facing information of murder Contrary to sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code [Cap 16 R.E. 2022 ]. The particulars alleged that the accused , on the 7th day of January, 2025 , at 2 National Housing Mburahati area within Kinondoni District in Dar es Salaam Region, did murder one Salim Maulid Omary (The Deceased) This trial was conducted by Miss Nitike Waissaka and Miss Sofa Bimbiga learned senior state attorneys also assisted by Mr Lucas Makori Stat e attorney. The accused had service of Miss Agatha Fabian learned advocate. The material facts as gathered from the prosecution witnesses are that: PW3, S P Rumanyika, a Police Commander at Bugurani, on 7.1.2025 at midnight, he received a report that there was a woman who reported to the police that his son had butchered a person. When he reached the station, he met PW4 Pamela Ayuke, the accused mother, who told him that he had seen his son, Simon Silvester Ayuke, cutting the neck of a person. When he responde d to the scene in the company of other police officers, he saw the accused, who admitted to him and showed the body, which was dumped in a sewage pit. He thus worked with fire and rescue team to re trieve the body from the pit. PW8 H 9463 D/CPL OMARY was in company of ASP Rumanyika, he verified that having arrived at the scene he arrested the accused. The accused cooperated and showed the police where was the body of the 3 deceased. The body was ide ntified by local leader Raphael Mteta (PW4) as body of Salim Maulid Omary . P W 4 Pamela Sylvester Ayuke the a ccused m other, stayed with his son (accused) at Mburahati, NHC. O n the material date of 7.1.2025 , while at home watching television she heard a bang at the gate. When she wondered what happened , by aid of electric light from her house, she saw a person lying on a lawn, and the accused was there. When she asked the accused w ho was that person, the accused told h er to go to sleep . She decided to go to police at Mburahati, and told the police that there was a person under custody of her son , she was worried that he would beat him ! W hen she went back home in company of police officers, t hat person was not at the lawn . Upon searching around, the police found the body in the sewage pit. According to her , she heard the accused saying he was the one who killed the deceased and showed where about the body . PW6 A /Insp Frank Mwalongo lead a team of fire and rescue team. According to him, having pulled the body from the pit, the very night of 7.1.2025 the body had a sharp cut wound at the neck. The body was identified by local leader Raphael Alex Mteka (Pw5) as such at the scene there was blood drops covered by sand . 4 The deceased body was examined by P W 1 Dr. Robert Malima a pathologist at Police K i lwa Road Hospital . This body was identified to him by PW7 Ahmed Maulidi Omary a relative . According to PW 1 the body had a severe cut wound at the front part of the neck occasioned by sharp object about 15 long and 7cm deep, the same had cut the skin, blood arteries and esophagus also touching the part of the spine. In his examination the cause death was Haemorrhagic shock following the cutting the arteries and large part of his neck . He tendered the postmortem examination report in Exhibit P1 . Pw 9 E. 6052 D/Dgt Kushoka, investigated the case, he said t he accused admitted to have murdered Salim Maulid Omary by cutting his neck and threw his body to the sewage pit. The confession statemen t was tendered as Exhibit P4. He also Sketched map of the scene of crime to the effect (Exhibit P3) suggesting that the witn ess Pw4 the accused mother was few meters close enough to see what was happening at the lawn. He also said the accused on 4.2.2025 repeated his confession before justice of peace. PW2 Veronica Mawole a justice of peace and magistrate at Magomeni Primary Court, t old this court that on 4.2.2025 the accused recorded extra judicial statement (Exhibit P2) before her and confessed 5 to her to have killed a person on 7.1.2025 at midnight who he did not know his name by cutting his neck and threw his body to the sewage Pit. On defense side, DW1 Simon Silverster Ayuke, told this court that on 7.1.2025, around midnight, he was home, he heard a bang sound outside the house. When he wondered what had happened, he saw a luggage like human body, thrown it to the compound, he went back to sleep. Shortly, a team of police arrived started to beat him and question him. He said the police found a body of human being from a sewage pit which was not in use by then. He said, the police officers started to beat him and took him to the station at Mburahati. He said he never confessed before to police nor before the Justice of Piece hon Mawole ( PW2). As such, he was taken to Mirembe Hospital for mental examination but not questioned by the doctor, he prayed for court leniency as he did not commit the offence. Thus, the charge should be dismissed. Now in this trial, to find conviction on the o ffence charged it is upon the prosecution side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that ; first, the said Maulid Omari is dead, second, death was not natural instead it was caused by an unlawful act or omission caused by accused person and third , in causing death the accused person (s) acted with malice 6 aforethought that is intent to cause such death or grievous bodily harm to the deceased . On the first aspect of death, there is uncontested evidence that, on the material date of 7/01/2025 , the police led by PW3, S P Rumanyika and the fire rescue team PW6 retrieved the body from the sewage pit. This body was identified by the local leader Rapha el Mteta (PW4) as body of Salim Maulid Omary but also his young brother PW7 Ahmed Maulidi Omary. As such , death was confirmed by PW1, the doctor who examined the body and tendered his report in Exhibit P1. On this aspect, the accused isolated himself with whatever happened to the deceased. There was no version to the contrary. Based on the above, this aspect is thus found in affirmative , that is to say, Salim Maulid Omary is in fact dead. The other aspect is whether the cause of death was not natural, instead it was caused by an unlawful act or omission. On this aspect , the prosecution relied on the report on post - mortem examination in Exhibit P1. According to PW1 Dr Malima who examined the body of the deceased, he said; The body had cut wound at the front part of the neck occasioned by sharp object about 15 long and 7cm deep, 7 the same had cut the skin, blood arteries and esophagus also touching the part of the spine. I t is also noted that , this body was found in sewage pit, as verified by the eye witnesses PW4 and officers who retrieved the same, these include Pw3 ASP Rumanyika and officer from fire and rescued team PW6 Asnt Insp Mwalongo. On this, the accused again d isassociated with the alleged wound his version was that he heard a bang sound outside the house and saw a luggage like human body, thrown into the compound before he went back to sleep. I note the accused did not dispute that the deceased had cut wound at the neck. While he is entitled to come with a version of his own, his assertion did not come near to convince because, one, if there was a body thrown to the house how did this body went ahead to go to the pit, in any case it is not normal and lawful fo r human body to be dumped like trash. two , his version was contradicted by PW4 h is moth er. Who said the accused was at the garden with a person who was later found to be in a pit. I thus hold that wounds in the deceased's body and the manner in which it was recovered from the pit prove beyo nd doubt that the deceased's death was not natural but caused by an unlawful act and brutal, to say the least. The other aspect is who caused the death of the deceased. The tale of the deceased's death started with the accused mother, who 8 testified as PW4 Pamela. She told this court that she saw the accused with a person at the lawn, the accused told her to go to sleep , but she rushed to the police to report him. It is also on record that PW3 Rumanyika and other police officers would not have gone to the scene but for PW4 Pamela. While I note she did not tell this court categor ically that she saw the accused slitting the deceased's throat. The events befalling at the scene after police arrival corroborate his reported worries to police as stated by PW3 Rumanyika. There is also a piece of evidence from PW4 that she saw the accused with an unknown person at the lawn, the police found blood at the said lawn, and a person was missing, only to be found in the pit the very night. It is also noted that the accused was at the scene, and both PW3 and PW4 told this court that he told the police wh ere he had kept the body. Eventually , the deceased body was retrieved from the sewage pit by PW6. On this, I consider the accused's cooperation and the discovery relevant to proving his complicity. My view is supported by provisions of Section 31 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 6 R.E. 2023) , which reads: “Where any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as 9 relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is relevant.” From the evidence of PW3 Rumanyika, who arrested the accused at the scene of the crime, and the evidence of PW6, who heard the accuse d tell the police that he had killed the deceased and his mother, and who was the first witness to raise the alarm with the police . I note the knife used to cut the deceased was not tendered ; this is explained by PW3 Rumanyika, who said they did not find the knife. This is a fact, resolved with the accused's own confes sion. Shedrack Kuhaha vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2015) [2015] TZCA 166 (5 June 2015), considered. I am convinced that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the accused was the killer. The accused’s defence that a body was thrown into the compound and that he went back to sleep is considered but not convincing. One would wonder why he did not care whether it was a human body. After all, PW4 said it was she who was told by the accused to go to sleep. It is also noted that there was evidence in the caution statement (Exhibit P4) that, in substance, the accused is recorded as having confessed to police PW8 E.6052 D/Dgt Kushoka that he had killed a 10 person on 7.1.2025 at midnight, whose name he did not know, by cutting his neck and throwing his body into the sewage pit. I am aware that the accused, in his defence, contested this confession, stating that it was not his free confession but, he was forced by the police to sign it. I have considered this defence but am not con vinced because; One , the post - mortem examination (P1), it was stated that the deceased's body had a cut wound at the neck; this report was not contested by the accused. I take it that it also corroborates the accused person's confession . See Rahma Almas Mwinyi @ Baby @ Rahma Almas Idd vs Republic (Consolidated Criminal Appeals No. 8559691C of 2024) [2026] TZCA 322 (10 March 2026) . Two the accused also repeated his confession to the justice of peace PW 2 Veronica Mawole to have killed a person he did not know his name. This confession was admitted without any objection from the accused. Three, according to evidence PW4 , the accused mother saw the accused with a person at the lawn. Later, there was blood found at the lawn and a few meters away, a body was retrieved from the pit. The timing that he was shortly seen with the deceased who turned to be dead is relevant Although the name of the person seen with the accused was 11 not known to PW4, the common wisdom dictates that , the presence of the body takes away the mistake or gap in the name. In totality , I am satisfied that there was enough evidence to prove that the accused killed the deceased. Lastly , I have also considered the aspect of malice aforethought. In this case, the motive of the accused is unknown; however, from the caution statement, the accused states that he thought the deceased was a thief . Th is is by n o mea ns a lawful recourse to take in deal ing with a thief. Under section 200 of the Penal Code Cap 16 200. Malice aforethought shall be deemed to be established by evidence proving any one or more of the following circumstances: (a) an intention to cause the death of or to do grievous harm to any person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not; (b) knowledge that the act or omission causing death will probably cause the death of or grievous harm to some person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not, although that knowledge is accompanied by indifference whether death or grievous bodily harm is caused or not, or by a wish that it may not be caused; 12 I have considered the manner in which the dece ased's life was taken away. Reading from the post mortem (P1) and testimony of PW1 Dr Malima, it was stated that the body had a severe cut wound at the front part of the neck occasioned by a sharp object about 15 long and 7cm deep, the same had cut the ski n, blood arteries and esophagus , also touching the part of the spine . The caution statement (P4) also indicated that the accused did slit the deceased's throat while holding him down; it reads in part. Nakumbuka kuwa mnamo tarchc 07/01/2025 majira ya saa 00:20hrs wakati huo mimi nikiwa nimetoka mjini na kufika hapo nyumbani kwetu nyumba ya jirani yctu nikamkuta kijana mmoja akiwa am e lala barazani na mimi nikamchukua na kuingia na e nyumbani kwetu na nikamp eleka mpaka uwani baada ya ku fi ka mi nikachukua kisu na nikamlaza chini huyo na kumkanyaga miguu yak e na kuanza kumchinja shingo mpaka aka f a na mama alikuwa dirishani kwa ndani akan i ambia wewe unafanya nini hapo na huyo mtu na baada ya huyo mtu kufa mimi nikamchukua na kumtumbukiza katika shimo la choo . When I p aused, wondering how this had happened, I considered similar cases where deceased throat was cut these are in Mutabazi S/O Simon Vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 52/87) [1987] T ZCA 211 (13 13 August 1987) but also a persuasive decision from Uganda i n Uganda V Byamukama (Criminal Session Case 151 OF 2023) [2024] UGHC 862 (23 SEPTEMBER 2024) in all these decision cutting of neck which was a sensitive pa rt of the body was held to be a clear exhibition of malice afore thought. The neck of the deceased, according to the uncontested post - mortem report (P1), was substantially cut. From the facts of this case, the accused literally butchered the deceased. Assuming he had a last breath to breathe after such a heinous act , he was dumped into a sewage pit . I t is based on these fa cts , I have no doubt that this was a clear manifestation of the intention to kill. The last aspect which I find relevant to address is the accused's state of mind. It is noted that the accused initially pleaded insanity, but after his examination, there wa s no evidence of insanity at the time of the offence. This report is on record; he did not wish to rely on it, when cross - examined on this, he said he was not questioned by the doctors who examined him. I shall pause here and say this aspect did not doubt the prosecution's case. In tota lity , I find that the prosecution has proved the charge to the required standard. The accused Saimon Sylivester Ayuke is thus found 14 guilty of the offence of murder contrary to Section 196 and 197 of the Penal Code [Cap 16 R.E. 2023] . A. J. KIREKIANO JUDGE. 25.5.2026. SENTENCE: The offence of murder for which the accused has been found guilty and convicted is punishable with only one mandatory sentence, namely, death by hanging. In the upshot and in terms of section 25 (a), Sections 26 (1), 196, and 197 of the Penal Code, I hereby sentence the accused to suffer death by hanging. 15 A J KIREKIANO JUDGE. 25.5.2026.