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 398Tanzania

Mussa Kongo vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1997) [1999] TZHC 398 (31 March 1999)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

\ ' ,· I I ' IN T]~ HIGH COURT OF TANZ.ANIA AT NJOMBE ' ( SONG A REGI; 'l'RY) CRIMINAL APPSAL NO. 54 OF 1)7 ( OGIN!'..L CRIMIN.\L C'.. i;_; N·-:-.. 60 OF 11)?7 bF TI DISTRICT COURT CF SC)NGEA !.'I' SONG:-:A) CNSOLI::)ATJD CRilO:Nf.L .I\PPAL 1~~. 55/Y? 'MUSA KONGO APP~LLANT VERSUS '.' •• J , ... , • . ~ .• • • .• • , ; i ~- J • •. • • R:i:SPONT)zr,rr ..... J tr D G M 'S N, T: .·. ·MKWAWA,.~J •

These E\re consolidate~ a.ppoali They are Criminal Appea1s Nos. 54 r.md 55 of 1 S7. They arise from t.e;. dcision of the District Court of _t;on.?·ea in :Cr. C:se No.l' 69 of :';1.9·7• It is coon gl'Ound that the .. appell,n ts; Mussa s/ o Kongo nnd '1!:d.w3.r,} s/o Luor::-a, were charged and eonvicted of store breaking and stea;om c/ss. 296 ( 1) and 295 of t!e Penal Co:e an(J. Guest hour-e brenkinf!' c/ ss 296 ( 1) and 26 of the ' ' Penal Co :.e.; They were conseauently each s,mtence,l to five \5) yoare imprisonment on each ca.unt. These sente:nc.s were· ore.erect' to run ·'e'oncurrerrtly. P.0in1:, e.ggriev,ed by_ th['.t ::1.ecision they are •now P.ppeai;is' to this cGurt,. From th proceadinr.;s in this court cm~'. the court below thp . I !ollowinp.; -_r-itters ;:,.r0. not .in c.:.sp4te 'eetwe,n- the p:1rties •. Dur:t! t-- · · night of January 3t 1S-97 th0 gu:wt hoUPe an'.i the store of the ; I '1ADA1l. LI~ T::,:AINING IW'TITU'T.':iJ in 2on,:,:.:;:o. 1 Son~·i)a District er . ' invaded by burglars ·who broke: into tri0m anr! stole severcl. i tc~ of \ .. property:. 'I'he ii}C".i. 'ent w2s subs::..1uently rcpcrt .. cc1. to the Polic~ / th .. ,., t v~ry morr.in? 3nd ·/

se.?.rches were mounted. ·into severe.l houses of prime suspects. ing the search two ble.nts were .retrieved from the roem of the second • I nppellnnt but severnl other iteme were recovered in the rdom of his rother one MATm 1 It is ,mmon sround that the latter is at large to-d.:lte. The blnnkents were -identified by the complaino.nt t-e/ be runong the i terns thry.t were stolen therefrom. It is common ground th<-'lt they were r.tll i::Rctbecl. the word LITI/MAD which is the Institute' a speci::•.l m::>.rk for their. belt,nging/ s.! It is c:.lso common ground that when the house of the first accused was searcher;. nnd nothin,P.: incriminr.ting wc,s retrieved from his house. It is appnrent frorri the record that after o.n intensive interrogation by the Police th,3 first npp-:7..::.,:.nt volunte1·ed to bke them to the bush were the stolen items were hiJ.den!. It is common ground that sc·j!)-res of th•· stolen i terns wer,:) subsequently retrieved from the thieves'" don in the i; bush ne2.r a runninP-; streo.rn., oth the ppellnts ?ehemently denii bing involved in the offnces which are now chc.rges levelled nf.ainst them... The first nppellant told ' I • I \ the court th8t he h-.:.'l only ,mt wind of the ·wherer::.houts of the \hidden \ \ stolen :i. terns fr om 1/'T·: 7 0D LUOGA ':'nd one PHILLIPO ·-KQ\IIBj when the~ ho.(i I sought from th-:,:r :::·or o. hel:Jing ho.nd c.t the time the; h2.d decic.ed t~ go 1: ii und rt.iiev0 their- ·, ootv from their dnn at the river side,. · 1 1 J '\ The sGcond ,?.ppellnnt in his defence raisec:. o.n ry_libi thnt on 1e material d,3.te he was on s.:?.fari r.it Mnwanga village, in Ludewa Distdet. This assertion finc 1 .s support in the testimony of PW.5 EDWARD LUoal ru1d ' DW. 4 CHAEL KIF ARO$ He cloo,.; not dispute the nssertion by the Prsecution thn.t some of the stolen i terns,. _no.mely the two bln.nkents from his bed-..room but he throwS: the blc.::ie on -his brother suspects to be the culprit •.• \ l were retrieved . ' . ' \ I • MAT:f-mt'- whQ he I ' ( . \ '\ ·\ The t•rial m.:lgistrate intrinsically disbelieved• the c.:ppellants' version and prc-c,<;:eded to convict th~m on the basis .of the evidence adduccc by the Prosecution's side. i \

3 - B<. th the appellanto pr.tested. th dr innocenc~ in their petitions of appeal and criticisd the trinJje-on'f!!.ctin magi.5-trte or· failed to con.sider their defonce versions which h::d exonerted them from all cul:rf,bili ty o Miss Kadehn, leo.rn,::d Stnte Attorney advocating the case for· the Republic/Rel::lpond.ent ur 5 cd the ccurt to dimi,ss the appeals os the 1: . evidence af?'O.inst th-:m wan overvthelming •. I She further submitted th,::tt the second a.ppellantl"s defenc~ or a.li'ot" I I c·ould. not be rel:i.ec1 upcn ns h,3 did not c 1 i,sclose it before he was c·alled upon to def en:i,. hims0lf •. I I h-::ive c2rcfolly gene throup.:h the judrctrient and pi tdd it with the I- . : vidence o.c.duc0d by the wi tn,sses from both. s:l.r: 1 .ec - ,I musi' say in e.11 '· earnest th.::-,t I h·ve consic:Jr:lble difficulty in nffirming th:-i.-., decisi_on., This is bec3U8e cf th0 foil0w!ng escns&. \ \ Firstly,. :::-::i.ilure: to crnsidcr defcnc::: C!:\S,') i:'= f,l'?.t;.1 to th·e proeecdihgw I , \ . . (see: .1-0CK HART -St]:rrn{:G.27 E.A •. 211 nt p-:,.,.<' 217 rmd if!:_t?Jf}.S/9,. \ I \ \ \ Secon·'lT, t ·:1:- C•-·art is not exempt from the req_ufremcn-.. to 1 lo.ke in\o \ I the defence of :11ioi. where such defance hns not bo·on disclcs,,d bv\ an I ; 1 r . l aecus,Jd p ;rscn b-.:fO".'.) th; pro.s .:cut ion clos-..:s its case ( s0c: .SH.l_<LBS. M: : \ ·1 . \ ' I V.R. /f9907 T,L,R. 3Si iri r()L,v.::.nt) •. ..........__ -. ,, "1 In the pr0s-.:;nt c.::so, h-::.d th0 trial/ convicting :igistrnt to.k,m ; \ . 'I ; I eognizanc2 cf th,., ctef..mces offend by tho r.i.ppellnnts ::Md prtiularl~ th~\ of alibi in support cf tho socond eppellant, ha wnul~' hoVe faun~ .~n { 0 ~vc.ur \ of the appcllnnts.... .... :; \ \ \ . As the def-anc<= ra-ised intrcduces reneon:~ble doubt ns to the "'Uilt 1; e, ot· the first r.i.p,clli'.nt; end hnving becm amply s:?..tisfi;rc. that the defenco of c:libi rlli.s.ad in fo.v,ur of the secC':nd appell:uit completely exonorn.te.s him frcm culpi'.bility,. I cAn iw'; allow the convictions , t0 st3.nd. 1:1 \ '

• 4 In the upshct, tho ppeals succeeq, The ccnvicticn re neco"d.inly quash "d' sentences set o.si::l~. The .c1ccused persons are to be set <:'ct liberty fcrthwith, unless otherwi-<:e held in, on some other purposes. It ie: sc crdcrer:.. DAl,1\Rl"7.D .;1t NJOM17. this 31st day of March'1'f.1.'-9' in th, pr:,1::enr,c: cf. Miss K~:: 1 eh,?., ;,to.ta Attorney. -. JUDG 31/3/99.

.• I . •♦ ...... : ... • ',,. .:",·:: .:: . . ~.:.,,.: ....... ?t.l ., . f_•,'·.'.· .. •.•. t : ,, ..... i ,. r.;,,,,t_l ·{,.:,\

Discussion