Found 86 search results Show on map

Mathew Gwandu and Leons Gwandu versus the Republic - No. 204 of 2013


The appellants were alleged to have been found in the Tarangire National Park in unlawful possession of three swala pala meat valued at Tshs 1,813,500/-, three did-dik meat valued at Tshs 1,162,500/- and three reedbuck meat valued at Tshs 2,092,500/- all valued at Tsh 5,068,500/- the property of Tanzania Government. Upon conviction they were sentenced to pay a fine of two million shillings or to serve a prison term of twenty years. Their appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful hence this second appeal. Appeal allowed, the Court quashed their convictions, set aside their sentences and ordered their immediate release from prison.

The Republic versus Hamisi Koni - No. 16 of 2007


The respondent one, Hamisi Koni, was charged before the district of Mpanda with the offence of unlawful possession of government trophy. Upon the accused being arraign before Mpanda district was committed for bail. While enjoying court bail, the accused absconded from appearing to the court. The court ordered the case be heard yet the accused jumped bail. At last the court further Oordered prosecution to prove their case still prosecution failed to bring witnesses. Tn 29/03/2007 when the case was fixed for hearing and upon prosecution fail to bring witnesses the court invoked section 226(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 20 and acquitted the respondent. Hence the prosecution filed revision before High Court to challenge the decision of the district court in acquitting the respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the decision of the trial court.

Machako Athumani versus the Republic - No. 01 of 2014


This is an appeal originating from Handeni District Court on Economic Case No. 13 of 2013. Appellant appealed the conviction by the Handeni District Court on case No. 13 of 2013 in which he was charged and convicted of the offense of unlawful possession of Government trophy contrary to section 86(1) of the Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009 read together with Paragraph 14 (d) of the first Schedule and Section 57 (1) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, Cap 200 R.E 2002. The appeal was allowed and conviction was quashed and sentence set aside.

Hassan Othman Hassan @ Hasanoo versus the Republic - No. 193 of 2014


This is an appeal of a decision of the High Court on the Criminal Application No. 15 of 2013 where the judge refused to hear the accused person’s bail application. The judge based her decision on the fact that the accused person was already refused bail in a previous consolidated Criminal Application No. 109, 114, 115, 117 and 120 of 2012, preventing her from re-considering the case. At that time, the judge refused to grant bail to the appellant because the offence for which he was seeking bail was committed while he was out on bail in another case pending trial. He was indeed charged with receiving stolen property under the Penal Code but was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 209 of 2011. Because he was acquitted, the accused person filed the new application for bail examined by the High Court under Criminal Application No. 15 of 2013. Aggrieved by the judge’s refusal, the accused person seized the Court of Appeal with two grounds of appeal: (1) that the judge erred both in fact and in law in holding that the appellant could not file a fresh application for bail pending trial given the fact that he was acquitted in the case which previously justified the refusal to grant bail; (2) that the judge misdirected herself in refusing to entertaining the application pending trial. The accused person is prosecuted for having committed three offences while out on bail in another case pending trial. He is charged together with other accused persons who were granted bail in a consolidated criminal application. After being acquitted in the case for which he had been bailed, he filed a new bail application before the High Court, which refused to hear it. Aggrieved by this refusal, the appellant seized the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the High ourt for consideration of the bail application.

Jasper Philemon Mngwulwi versus the Republic - No. 56 of 2015


On 25th August, 2013 at about 01:00hrs at Mheza-Maore Village within Same District – Kilimanjaro region, the appellant was arrested for being in unlawful possession of the government trophy which is one “cheeter” skin worth Tshs. 7,942,900, the property of the government of the United Republic of Tanzania and without permit or license. He was charged at Same District court, was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to six years of imprisonment. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the District court he appealed to the High Court and produced three grounds of appeal. The appeal was heard while he was standing on his own with the Attorney General on the other hand. The appellant Jasper Philemon Mngwulwi was arrested and charged at Same District court for the offence of possessing government trophy. The case was heard and he was convicted and sentenced to six years imprisonment. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the District court he appealed to the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of the District court and set aside the sentence.

Emmanuel Saguda @ Sulukuka and Sahili Wambura versus the Republic - No. 422B of 2013


The appellants were found at Serengeti National Park without any written authorization. They were also armed with bows and arrows, knives, bush knives and trapping wires. It was also alleged by the prosecution that they were found in possession of government trophies. The accused were convicted by a District court and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment or a fine of Tshs. 10,000/= on the first count; two years imprisonment or a fine Tshs. 20,000/= on the second count; three (3) years imprisonment on the third count and 30 years imprisonment or a fine of Tshs. 13,617,000 on the fourth count. Having being aggrieved by the decision they appealed to the High court which reduced the third sentence from 30 years to 20 years imprisonment. The appellants decided to appeal such a decision to the Court of Appeal on three grounds: (1) PW1, PW2 and PW3 were not credible witnesses, (2) it was not proved that the appellants were caught in the National Park by PW2 and PW3, (3) the court wrongly admitted the evaluation report and the inventory form, Exhibits P1 and P2. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision and set aside the sentence.

Director of Public Prosecutions versus Yohana Peter Ngoira and Pelo S/O Moleiment Munga @Pelo - No. 331 of 2015


The appellant was appealing against the decision of the High Court which ruled that the offence which the respondents were charged with was not an economic crime to be tried before the High Court and thus ordered that the matter to be remitted back to the trial court for necessary amendments of the charge and proceed with trial accordingly. The High Court judge erred in law by holding that possession of government trophy contrary to section 86 (1) and (2) (b) of the Wildlife Conservation Act, No. 5 of 2009 was not an economic crime.