The accused was arrested at Ituka areas within Mikumi National Park in while he was in possession of various species specified as government trophies to wit were elephant tusks and hippopotamus teeth. He was also found in possession of fish and of various weapons believed to be used in poaching activities. He was charged in Kilosa District court. The accused person was found guilty of all five counts he was charged with.
Both three accused were arrested on 23rd August 2013 at Msimba Village within Kilosa District Morogoro region. They were found in possession of the Government trophy and were arrested and charged at Kilosa District Court. Three accused were found in possession of the Government trophy to wit the leopard skin believed to be attempting to sell it. The court found the accused persons guilty of the offence.
Accused was arrested at Mihanda Village in Mikumi Ward within Kilosa District on allegations of been in possession of the Government trophies contrary to the provisions of the law. He was charged at Kilosa District court. He was found in possession of the Government trophy to wit 10 pieces of the elephant meat valued at Tshs. 24, 127, 500 the property of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and without permit or license. The accused person was acquitted.
The accused Mwajuma was charged of an offence of been in unlawful possession of the Government Trophy which is contrary to section 86 (1) of the Wildlife Conservation Act No. 5 of 2009 read together with Paragraph 14 (d) of the First Schedule to the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act Cap 200 of R.E 2002. That she was found with the trophy and was arrested in the morning of 7th day of October, 2003 at Mwanga area Handeni District. The accused person was found not guilty of the offence.
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.
Accused Stambuli Rashid was arrested at Mfulu Village, Kitete Ward within Kilosa District with allegations of possessing four (4) kilograms of bushbuck meat. He was charged at District Court of Kilosa. Accused was found in possession of four (4) kilograms of Bushbuck meat valued at Tshs. 936,000. He was charged of the offense of possessing Government trophy contrary to the laws of the country.
Accused persons were arrested at Kihelezo village within Kilosa District in Morogoro for on allegation of possessing Government trophy against the laws of the country. Alleged Government trophy was buffalo meat weighing 5 kilos. When charged they all denied the charged but later convicted as charged and sentenced. Both accused persons were found guilty and therefore were convicted.
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.
Accused Juma Grayson, Geofrey Semkoko and Salim Kigoda were arrested and charged for being found in unlawful possession of Government trophies contrary to the provision of the law. They were all charged at the Pangani District Court for the same offence. Accused were found in possession of government trophies to wit buffalo meat valued at Tsh 480,000 and dik-dik meat valued at Tshs. 15,600, the property of Tanzanian Government without any lawful permit and contrary to the provisions of the law. The court dismissed the case and acquitted the accused persons.
The accused were jointly found in possession of buffalo meat and fourteen (14) ammunitions without a permit. During their charges they both pleaded not guilty. As a demand of the law the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) consented and issued certificates of the order for trial of this case as an Economic Crime Case, hence both accused persons were charged in court as per the requirement under the EOCCCA. Prosecutor managed to bring to court two witnesses who testified to substantiate the charges as they were and these were Festo Lyamuya and Hamis Abdallah Mwinyikombo. The accused persons were not found guilty as charged and were acquitted accordingly.