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[1999] TZHC 497Tanzania

Kasingo Lesuta vs Republic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1993) [1999] TZHC 497 (14 June 1999)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

<?(rt :·:t: t-?\J: _:: ~ :\ f::,:ttiy f ~~~tt:-tJ; -:t•:-t::; . ❖ ,_ :_:::-' t'?; .. : ;:, ..... ,, .. - .. ,,. i}t:( . ,, ' tfl; f-- vJVt - ~ ~ ,I • -•.: '·111'. ,•. 1 ">, I •:C,..t ., J • : 'I ,II '! '! ·-1'*'!' ► .iINl'•i' -V-,•4'{, '. ,,•v,,._,. ,- ·----. ------,_ __ ;;,---,---;,,,......,--:-"--.-....... ~ . . . . .. .-__ ·- . ~~ZANI.A • m:sm:, J. ·AT MOSHI HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83 OF 1993 Original Criminal Case No. 234 of 1992 of the Distrit:t Court of Hai District at Hai. BEFORE: S.E. MWANGA,. ES·t,· District Magistrate KAS1HGO LESUTAi ♦ •• 0 0 0 0. 0 O.•. 0. D ·•·•·. APPELLANT VERSUS·· THE REPUBLIC: •c•ooo•oo•o•ooo•••-••• RESPONDENT .. JUDG.i:!:MENT ' --.,. '· The appellant, Ka.ahingo s/o Leseuta; was charged and _convi.cted fo:i.· the offence ef oattle -theft c/s 268 ( 1) and, 265 of the. Penal Code. ·. It was.=-al'.!.e€L, that on 9th February, 1992 at about 08.,00 hours at Mpa,t.akyexv-:-vlllag, ir. Ifai •District, ICilimanjaro. Region the appellant stole) _five hea.d::i·:·of 08-ttle valued a.t shs. 300, 600/= the property· of Abecl:i,el A" Munisi. The appc>ll.s .. rrr- was sentenced to five years imprisonment;. He is appealing against. l.,otl1 convictfon and sentence. The .appellan has put forward several grounds of appeal.· Learned SE>c.'.'...or State Attorney did not seek to support the conviction and prayed· for tne appeal to be ·allowed.. It is not surprising that the· Republic does not supr,0:r:.:- the conviction. Reading the whole evidence _it is not outright clear as t1 \·, which version of. the evidence is truthful •. PW 2 Kima.1 Langado told the court that he had a kraal at his father's place at Mbata.kyero. According to him.he had some cattle in that place· incluilng five oxen which were stollen and which belonged ·to Ab13.Clie1 Munis:.,, . . PW 2 told·the court that on 9/2/92 at 5.00 a.m.' he was at Mbataky:oroo P 1 :l,2 said that he had come from Sanya _station. · On arriy;;i.l he checked the kraal . . , ' and found five· oxen missing. This witness did not tell ·the court ·as to why on that particular day he had to travel so early froin Sanya Station to Mbat·akya.ro,. to check his cattle. PW 2' s father, Loshukokiro and PW ·2 's son Letipapai wh0 ere said to be the ones living at the· place where the cattle were stilen did not give evidence. the animals were last seeing in the kraa.i. It is not known.when ex.actly However PW 2 reported the theft to the villagers and search began without any success-. At the same time two people were noted missing from the village who includ~ the appellant and one Kaviti. The two people were suspected pa.rticttlarly·the appellant who · · ~bitual according to the evidence of PW 3 Kuiya s/ o Mapii is a ..I.. criminal in the village. -- . ·---

    • . ••••••o•• 2 . ·. -------~

' , -. 'l ,.. ! i . . '.: . ;i::. - ;.; ,. ,. ·-·· ';f :::r.;t·;: . .,..; . - • , . f • : ·<;r ;) ;-'A·: :: l ', , {; , . •;::,:li)iifi,,lu, .,,~ .,:,i\• · , · ... , '•ii ;" ,_ '"·'"""""''"" · -\ ~ -f;~~,t~;:~~~;t:-'1•-- ... ,;•~•f',:;.;".... .'. -- '·- - .• : ". . , . .., , :"-, :; :·: ,. : Y .. , "-.-,;' .. _ • . ·" r, ·~ /; l ,.-; ·?· .\ t ~ • f .y-r:-·· .... ; * bo!'na of 'Leiyo: :j3/ P_ Kirey - :.pw ,4' :t f. Oo'.: ~~-114 o:n .12/2/92 and arrested PV I • , •• '. \ •. •'.'.._ , J • : • • , • • ,•j-• '.• t • ,, \•..A • ,•J .\ •, :. ,:~• • • • • r, • '• '

  • 1i ves · at .Sya Juu. Station;, ' Th-e ;arresting party ·decided to take the appel: .- • ' • , • " , ' • • •'. •,' 0 ·' : • , 1 _.' I ." i . ·,f ,· • • •• ' ' . • to flomang'ombe 'Poli_ce- St_ation •. How'e"Q"ej, ·:t&e· prosecution .witness stated on i.. . ' ' ' '. ' : . . ,': .· ' ' ..... ' ' . ' ' way the appella}+t ·promi.set,to ;1:3how --t-hem. where the catt1e were ·as he had not ·· ', '. ··• ·' ·, . ... ' . ; I , • · .:._ I ,· :· ~ · :· . . ' _; .' 1 r • c ,, , : 1 ' • sold them. _II1he appellant· then :took'' the· '.party to- Olumera area in Arumeru District abut' 20 ki_lorne-ties a;ay •. ~ Accrln&;, to the, pros'ecuti.on evidence, tb . '• . ',· . -· • , .. l • : / • . ... • ' appellan1i led_ the pa±ty'.Jn the i'or"e?t ·-wb,sr.e :.they ·.toung. ·a .rreshly built kra· with the five oxen' wh;ich wre ,\cie-tir~~~d 'bi the· ,-Oer · : ' . . • .• • '. . ' • • i \ ;t __ -=•· ;' • · .. · • ••, ... • • The appellant on :the other .11an_d wid .the -·court that he was a:tTested at ab "... . ·, . ' '. ·: .· ' - . ·, . ,'.· • ... ; .. ·, f ' . 7 .oo p.m. at his home on 12/2/92. _\£ter being. arrested he was taken to Olumer . • ,. . J ••• • . ',· ' forest and five oxen were brought from th_e :foret. ·,lhe applla.nt was supp-ortc by DW 3 - Payana 'l1aiibo 'tci ·{he. e££.ect. that' he, wi rested at his home and ' 1 ' ',. • ' taken away qw Sungusw:i.gu., :'The - appilant . sta:t ed :. thai · the whole: charge agaiD.b" • ... . " i-1'- .. : .... ·. ~ '--·! . '' : ·. .: ' .- •,.' :- . ' . ' . . ' hinLwas f_ra1¥d up by PW-- r-:Iti:::1a.nlp.;.·_beause of. ai.dge between him a..d t};l - ppeii't ·. becauee _P{_2 \1a.a. ''St,b;).'.e,n some: goats, tbe· poperty of one Mwalirnu , '. •• -;:. --··· ..... • .. . •••• • ••• • .o: .-'· : •·• · •• . • • ·:. .-- •• · . 'Rishya and which ,the appellant · mad!=?- a,. fo'Ilow up 1 ·an.a, reoovez-ed .but PW 2 ·, ·appol9gi'zeif·1mct 'the'mat{e; - -etiJ4·--:-- _i~~~ i~~~ 'trial _magistrate -stated • ,... "!<, . ' --·" • • ,, • ,· ·,' • ' ••'• • . . '• .. '-'tt.- e'!e 1! .thee- wer grud.g~s -"9~:tw:ee!l t~~- --llant .d. fW 2, he said no reason for PW 3 a.ud PW 4 t</lie .agait hin1·,ka.• say that the appellant l.ed the~ . . . . ' . '·. . . . - ....... ·. . ' . '.• ' -,, ... - '.. : . to. the .for-est-'-and• showed: them the &tollen-.oxen · • • • I • '• ~ • . .. :· . . : ·=· . - . : ' . • '. ~ i . . ' ·,' . ' ' Right from: ·the. beginning I pointed out that· the .eviden;ce of PW 2 was-susp.ed· -:_. ' .:·· •'·,J . ' .•. . ; '. ' • ·,. ~ -· ·, .,, .. • ' .- . . . • The first ·point is: what made PW 2 .travel· in :te night. f:rom Sa.nya station to Mbatakyero where ,h~: ive{ a.'(500 a~in.- j:-"t;o·:.oh~(?k ·:if. s cattle were sa£0 . What ma.de• him 61lpect that 1000~~ :might::;{-b'bi1en' his cattle. ' .413 I said before hl; ftr-'.-iind son··h·-·;e livig:·t·':,Mbaier; whctte the animals we • ' • • . ' L • ' . ·' kept were' not called to' give' ev-ic.nce •-' , Scdnaiy,. the appellant was arrested :th nothing inciminat:1.ni -~~,. qpt;:cing hlm: iJit·h_the, offence.· · Why therefore had the appellt to t·ake ·\he\1ite;ses 20· kiiometr'e: ~ay ·and show them the , -,' ' • I ., • .•· • • •• • • .. alleged stollen o;iten. · Again. if' tho;' appellant. had st9llen:_.the Ofen and had taken 20 k:q.ometrea away-'Trbm''t'.ne ~ceriEf does Jt .sound_reasonal?le for him to
  • 'le.ave the animals· in .. the .:Co;1:1it- una.tt'.e'nd9-- -,ii ;et$i- to the vllage as it was • . : ; • . ', I· • contended ·by the proseouti'on.-,' Tfus ie ,1ot'.in accord' with normal behaviour of • . • I ·• ' . . , . . 4uman - being. ·. Gue· would expe_ct that\if. t.he· appEtllatit had successfully taken , . • , ·• • •• r- ·' • • I ·. I • • ' · the a.pi.ma.ls .20 kJ1¼ -he :wouJtl '. hav: disposid)f t~~i animals before returning home. :Both PW 2 . and _PW 3 afuni tted that .'the· apllant ·was · s-peoted because he was ' ,. . .. . . ,· : '. ·:_ . . . ·. ' . a known thief11 · On careful consideration bf ··a:1.1 the circumstances in this ca.sc ... - - ' '. . ':' . . . ' . • . .- ·" . the:i;e is 'clea:dy -. unc;rtainit - to the ttilt"hfuJn'ess of the prosecution t.stimonis '8.lld; he_.pseil~~~-tt the a;peUan.t -axreste- and led to wher, I ' · · ... ' . ' · · · • ' I the _cattle ..re 9a.n not be ruled; o:ut t:aking :'1to' ac~ount. ?the '.fact· that there , .' ; - .. ' • , ' • •. I . . w;i:-e. grudge$ be:t"'~~n P\f; ~, an,a; th!;!. appellant'. · :· . ,l , , • ,• ,) ' , . ''>1 -, .... , '. ••••• 3 ,

' l I . The conviction of the appellant-was baaed on susp1c1-0u.s evidence. For tLr above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction is quashed and the , sentence is set aside. The appellant must be set free forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. Judgement delivered in chambers today the 14th of June 9 1994 in the presence of 1-'ir. Songoro - S.A. for the Respondent/Republic and in the absen-.:-. of -the appellant who did.not wfsh to appear _a,t ~he hearing of the appeal. ~l .. --- N.M. MlisJLi Judge 14/6/9,. ·-. ....................

Discussion