africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • All jurisdictions →

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2000] TZHC 250Tanzania

Elias Peter vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No 66 of 1999; Criminal Appeal No 66 of 1999; Criminal Appeal No 66 of 1999; Criminal Appeal No 87 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 250 (14 June 2000)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

IN JT ARUSUA

  • canwij PFL lbs. 6 67 3 At 37 OF 1999 0 (Oriuc1 XUaha District Court CrC0iIo. 112/9) ELfAS PiT1R •. • • APPLLAT Versus T REPUBLIC •• Rj.iSPOxTDENT / f JUDGMENT -. 1 IUSHI, JIJIGiJO Four Appbals have boon consolidatodi The .ppollan -ts aro

Elias Potor - 1st Appollant •• .- • ilashim Saidi. - 2nd Appoflant Swaloho Horned - 3Pc1 kppollt and Pcter Laizer - 4th Lppeliant, The four appellants woro jointly charged with t1cffcn6à of stáadig c/s 265 of the Penal Code. It was al1ogodtbt on.2ndofpry1999 ' at about 8.30 his, at ire-Zar'' ca s a i3iThy, tho Lollsnts jointly stoic 33 cartons of tiles va 1 odiT5OO,OOO/= - tue property of S.adick Oainbai Th uil-ty to bho char but after the trial, thçy wcro corvietcd as Ohrgoci, They wore sontoncoci tø.fivo (5) yoar inprioniibn% oaáh, Thro appoling ainst the conviction and sentence. !fter hearing tic oppollants and the learncü S.tate Atoriy, irs. Ift1latTr- , the .pca1s worc allowed,. The conviotLori was quw 1 aod and. the Scfltoncc st aside,, Th49 Lppellants worry to be . re-leased. forth. - h 5 frau Prison, casons wore reserved. Reading the grotnde of aprcal for the four Appcllants uOy are all Coflplaining -that -they were' convicted without sufficioni ovidcico. On thO QVidcncc on rocord, the coiiplaint is justifiod. In actual fact s tho learned ti magistrate did not say that -tho prosecution ovdonco '. •• had ovod the charge beyond reasonable doubt, In his..00nclud.ing .. :.; entonco, the learned trial rnagis -tratd stated, and I quotp:— . . "To swa up as I-said before, the group of security gua±'ds had the keys to the gate which opens the store as well and the second group is this one which,: had the kbys :to tho store rid actualy one of ho member jfl:.ti4s sdcond.roip was soon - S. taken out -tiles bütthe othor iernor.bf the othor:group S rosis -t this fact and ho. never .disolosod this o his cuployor. S

. •o.xo_s TV to3 r3uJuptç oxo E)I 0q UITt.IOJ o1qttiodso.i oaObl..SorLjUOSJOd ponoo ptt .to uosxocI rosnOo otto jo prar .ioptm q.notnoufl i1 OT oq. q.POJJO otj. o. si POOnPPV oOuoptw Ot 4 oonb PU 'ti uiL .' t[.9 S 41 pOUS qubtiøpnC STrj wç otsjtitxi T5 potLreO oqL oIoS otfl- • q.ttrtoos ot oq oodsortti oj sçtq. ;o Tbodst Olqj. xoptsuoo qou pt tnOO 172LI!. btfl ciOf OIO21 SOt. OZfl. OIOtkt OOS tj pottocto Ost otzi'auj otq.ttp OOtZOtAO tzt s ?axos or.jo so OtL. .103 • .-. : -tq- UoC.thi± s ot& .xO o.ios ot. xoj oiqsuodsoJ s& ot s oouoppo ott • • i Smotot ttctcJoo ot. jo ?txtpitnq otjq. wç sot. utçj st otii • : • JO!-Otq-ttbO s Sq pootThio :stptrnj oion squ tocIcIr c[9,4 pus pi pue spamiD • . i ThflOO5OIO.M. q.1Zt ddV pu ptts ØD 'suflOCiJ ot jo o. • .• pots Ri cli a-i. ..........oaoi sotq jo sttoq.ieo ccJ qx. o; otq. ptm sqoC Ot poonpp s•o ' totti oOtzOtAO ot 'uOs.xocI posrtoo 9tfl. jo 11Tfl5 otç • qnôp r)1:nol.1.Uoszoci 01quos3OJ Ott 'OOUOPTAO Poqd000v 0W4. tZO As oq sc • posnoo ot. qsuto OXT0 otj. poAo.1cI st OO o cL p0000 pu p000.1 •uo 'otzopo eq t(T potJSts Oq prmo; oquto 'qtot Ot[q. 'T-V Stq. tt_t PO&OO2 o-,Iq. SOTrb0J oAoqe poonb sle COttoptAD JO 1. iwl: oqj, • • 4•' • -i °qizE!utvciuJoo Otfl JO O.1O2 0t[f. UJOaJ Sol:-n • • ....• otos66// uto oc O I-Mil •• . • •• . • • • . .•• . • . •• • • • QOZOfl. 1DoI.OJ(I eq oq sn tort so; .io Iouj Ot[. 6 1podde Stt[q ui ssxo .ot; ot !qnop oqtuos?o.I puo1ocL uonoosoad • •; • - otq pOTJsts T tnoo et ' - c sopro is

  • JotEo.io-oqLu, oiott qdeoxo 6 s.1oq0 putozo ur () • . : :: • • •.•• flIOtfl pO.O.1CI oq O 1)1t35 S. -°J V oonb 4-°v oduoit.j jo () uooj 'qqnop oquosox puoioq squodci otjq tEe aJiLtto ot. pooj sti p.x000i uo oouoprAo otfl ctjq 7ut&s J.OV. St Ot.0 t uctewrq. orts otj. ° pottJootzoo s oottoppo ot. si .io; 'w000uic o.rt suosod posnoot ot. et .s o tt1aono.1 .10 tt OLT t'J pOtt.ItO Ot • •""'-- TflflI ciotI ox7[oop .1Otil3.1 4 StZOS.I3 poenooe JO OOu000tatt Otfr. 000p O ttStSO.1 $1 JflOO OrjT Sttjq. JO JrlO 0XOJ0J0LjL ll o.r3•-EOop : o4; utoj L St ar.bô ot. sttq. Jo flO o.1oJo.Iot[ • -• U

== 3 Third accused iorson and 4th accused persons wore also allowed to get inside the store either to clean or to take building materials from thor inside. Theroforo no body from cithor sido could do anything asrogards building materials without iowlod of the other 0 " The ovidence on rocord does not support this finding at all, There was no evidence that the tiles were under the oxeclusivo custody of the Lpollants. Tho Plppollants were convicted under this misconception of. fact s It was in tho prosecution case that the ksy to the nain dte also opened the store wore the tiles wero ipt. This waters drn the finding of the learned trial magistrate. No one saw any of the Lppellants stealing the tilos. The Jippollants were clearly convctcd without any sufficiom evidence, The±o azo roascn for the docisioj . •' 1 .' 14/6/2000 . L . / . '1 One copy of udgment to be supplied to the Prmjal

"Stato itor , .Arusha0 N. MUSEI JUJDO 14/6/2000

Discussion