The Republic vs Lucas Charles Sabuni (Criminal Sessions Case No. 15570 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 2830 (25 May 2026)

1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DODOMA SUB-REGISTRY) AT DODOMA SITTING AT SINGIDA CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 15570 OF 2025 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS LUCAS CHARLES SABUNI RULING ON SENTENCE Date of last order: 25/05/2026 Date of Ruling: 25/05/2026 LONGOPA, J.: The convict was found guilty and convicted for offence of Manslaughter contrary to Section 195 and 198 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022 on his own plea of guilty. The convict stood arraigned for Manslaughter having caused unlawful death of Wille D/O Joseph Mabele on 9 th February 2025 at Unyakae Street in Mandewa Ward Mungumaji Division in Singida District and Region as a result of domestic fracas. It is on record that accused and the victim had a fight on account of the 2 | P a g e victim commencing a business without approval of the accused as he had restricted/prevented her from opening up a business. Having found him guilty and convicted under Section 195 and 198 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022, the learned State Attorney for Prosecution Ms. Caren Rwebangira and Mr. Bonaventura Njelu, learned advocate for defence had opportunity to submit before this court on appropriate sentence to be imposed against the convict. Ms. Caren Rwebangira, learned State Attorney notified this Court that there were no criminal records on the previous conviction of the offender. She prayed that this court be pleased to sentence the offender in accordance with the law. Conversely, Mr. Bonaventure Njelu, learned advocate for defence prayed for lenience of the Court on the following account, namely; One , this convict was the first offender as there are no records of previous criminal records. Second , the manner of commission of the offence resulted from the fighting between the husband and wife. There was a fight that resulted to both the offender and victim collapsing then the offender finding himself at Singida District Police Station with handcuffs. 3 | P a g e Third , the offender demonstrated the remorseful as he cooperated with victim’s family by allowing the children to stay there at the victim’s family and the offender did handover the house with 12 rooms to the victim’s family for leasing to get money for the maintenance of the issues that the victim left behind. Fourth , the offender throughout had cooperated with law enforcement and stayed as a good citizen throughout . Fifth , the offender has a total of eight children from two wives including the ones with the victim who are solely depending on him. He is depended by the wife and children for their daily maintenance. It was the learned advocate’s view that all these factors warrant the court’s consideration for a more lenient sentence to the offender who willingly pleaded guilty to the offence of Manslaughter indicative of his remorsefulness for his actions. Having heard the submissions by the counsel for parties on sentencing, this court is enjoined to determine appropriate sentence to be imposed on the convict. 4 | P a g e Sentencing is a process that empowers the court to judiciously exercise its discretionary powers to impose appropriate sentence considering all prevailing circumstances. Criteria for sentencing include considering of the sentencing policy, the need to balance on principles of proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation of the offender. This position was articulated in the case of Mwita Juma @ Machango vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 129 (26 February 2026) (TANZLII), at pages 13-14, the Court succinctly held that: As we delve into this matter, we wish to state, at the onset that, there is nothing legally impugning in the imposition of such sentence, considering the fact that the offence attracts a maximum of life imprisonment. We are aware that, when considering the sentence to be imposed on an offender, courts take into consideration the sentencing policy as well as extenuating circumstances. This persuasive position was lucidly encapsulated by the Supreme Court of Zambia in Abednego Kapesha & Another v. The People - Select Judgment No 35 of 2017, in which it was held: "The issue of extenuating circumstances is all about the sentencing policy of courts. There is no doubt whatsoever that one of the [principal] objectives of 5 | P a g e criminal law is the imposition of adequate, and proportionate sentences, commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime was committed... in exercising such discretion, however, courts are bound to consider a number of principles which include proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation.... "[Emphasis added]. In our view the sentence imposed by the trial court was mostly informed by the gravity of the offence, the manner of the commission of the said offence and other attendant circumstances. What skipped the mind of the learned trial Judge is the deterrence and rehabilitation side of the imposition. We think, for a 19-year-old schooling boy, this lengthy sentence has ignored the possible downsides that it may cause to his life. It extinguishes all his dreams that a youth of his age would have. While the punishment will have taught him a lesson and make him pay for the wrongs he did, the damage that it will do to his life, if fully served, will have left an indelible mark that will have spoiled his future. We note that the appellant's mitigation, which was accorded little attention by the learned trial Judge, implored the trial Judge to consider the age of the child (the appellant) and take a note of the fact that both the victim and the appellant were wrong. 6 | P a g e It is the guidance of the superior Court of the land that in sentencing balancing act of the court on proportionality of the sentence in relation to the offence, need for deterrence and rehabilitation of the offender. The rehabilitation aspect entails having reformation of the offender to re-integrate into the society upon the completion serving the sentence. Thus, duration of the sentence should be considerate of the need to have the offender reintegrate in the society within appropriate time. The offender in this case has pleaded guilty to the offence of manslaughter right away when called upon to enter plea. He deserves leniency of the Court. In the case of Frodius Protazi vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 194 (13 March 2025) (TANZLII), at pages 6-7, the Court held that: It is settled law that, an accused pleading guilty to an offence which he is charged is entitled to the mercy and deserves lenient sentence. This was underscored in the case of BERNADETHA PAUL VS REPUBLIC (supra) which was cited to us by the appellant's counsel. In that case, the Court reduced the excessive sentence having cited with approval a Malawian decision in the case of case of FRANCIS CHILEMA VS REPUBLIC [1968] 7 | P a g e H.C.D 510 where the accused pleaded guilty having said thus: “It is generally, if not universally, recognised that an accused pleading guilty to an offence which he is charged qualifies him for the exercise of mercy from the court. The reason is that one of the main objects of punishment is the reformation of the offender. Contrition is the first step towards reformation, and a confession of a crime, as opposed to brazening it out, is an indication of contrition. Therefore, in such a case a court can, and does impose, milder sentence that it would have otherwise have done. 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 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 8 | P a g e 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. Consequently, since the appellant has stayed behind bars for about five years, we think the term served is sufficient to warrant his reformation. The commission of the offence by the offender would be characterised as medium level of the Manslaughter whose maximum sentence would be ten (10) years imprisonment. However, it is on record that death in this matter happened as a result of a fight which made both offender and victim unconscious prior to the victim succumbing to death. Also, there was nothing on record to indicate use of any lethal weapons in course of the fight. These aspects call for lenience of the court in sentencing the accused. As a result, two years are deducted from the maximum penalty that would be imposed. The other limb of consideration is that of the convict pleading guilty to the offence when called to enter plea, which may be considered as remorsefulness of the action of the offender leading to death. This factor co-joined all remaining mitigation factors namely appellant’s cooperation with law enforcement agencies by confessing before at the 9 | P a g e Police Station as well as before a Justice of peace where he recorded extrajudicial statement, age of the offender as well as existence of dependants. Totality of these factors reduced four and half years of the maximum sentence. Given that the death arose out of domestic quarrel, the remaining period of four (4) years of custodial sentence would be sufficient for reformation of the offender. That in the settled view of this Court would be appropriate sentence on manslaughter arising from domestic quarrel. The guidance may be reckoned from the case of B. 6772 P.C. William vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1988) [1988] TZCA 204 (13 October 1988) (TANZLII), at page 2, where the Court noted that: Sentencing is no doubt a very difficult exercise, each case having its own set of facts and circumstances, manifesting themselves in different dimensions. An Appellate court should not lightly interfere. The situations which warrant interference are well known and, with respect, we are of the view that this is one such situation: We are satisfied, despite Mr. Mwale's view of the matter, that the sentence imposed is manifestly- excessive, taking all the relevant factors into account. We think that considering the mitigating 10 | P a g e factors revealed, more especially that the assault was a result of a little quarrel between spouses and that no lethal weapon was used, and further that the appellant had been in custody for over four years before conviction and sentence, the punishment meted out was unduly stiff. Having heard the rival submission of the parties on aggravating and mitigating factors, this court founds that custodial sentence is appropriate for the offender and the period of four (4) years imprisonment may serve the purpose. Thus, the offender one LUCAS CHARLES SABUNI is hereby sentenced to FOUR (4) YEARS IMPRISONMENT from this day. It is so ordered. DATED and DELIVERED at Dodoma this 25 th day of May 2026. E.E. LONGOPA JUDGE 25/05/2026.