The appellant was convicted by the trial court on three counts and acquitted on one count. Aggrieved by the decision he appealed to the high court which upheld the decision of the trial court. He then appealed to the Court of appeal on the following grounds: (1) that, the trial and first appellate courts erred in law and fact to rely on the prosecution’s evidence in which the complainant did not testify, (2) that, the trial and first appellate courts erred in failing to detect that the Public Prosecutor (PP) in the case was below the rank required to prosecute economic offences, (3) the trial and the first appellate courts erred in law and fact by relying on exhibit P3, certificate of identification and valuation of trophies, contrary to the relevant laws, (4) that, the trial and the first appellate courts erred in law and fact by neglecting the appellant’s strong defence and (5) that, the case under appeal was not proved beyond reasonable doubts. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The appellant is appealing against the decision of the high court which upheld the decision of the Resident Magistrate Court on the ground that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions was not granted in terms of section 26(1) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act (CAP 200 R.E. 2002) before commencement of the trial against the appellant. The Court of appeal allowed the appeal but did not order a trial de novo because the appellant has already served over 10 years since he was sentenced in 2003.
The appellants were found to be in unlawful possession of elephant tusks found in the second appellant’s house and fresh and dried meat found in the first appellant’s house alleged to have been obtained from Katavi National Park. The appellants were found to be in possession of elephant meat and tusks without a valid licence. They were tried and convicted by Resident Magistrate at the District Court of Mpanda and sentenced to a fine of 50,000 each or serve five years in prison. The appellants opted to pay the fine. Dissatisfied with the sentence, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed to the High Court of Tanzania at Sumbawanga (DC Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2009). Specifically, the DPP complained that the learned trial magistrate should have imposed a minimum prescribed sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment, and not a fine of Tshs. 50,000/= or five years prison sentence in default. The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence with one of 20 years. Aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate court on sentence, the two appellants lodged this appeal, against the new sentence and they in addition contested their conviction by the trial court, which was not the subject of the DPP’s first appeal at the High Court. Through the invocation of revisionary power, the Court of Appeal nullifies, quashes and sets aside the proceedings and decision of the District Court of Mpanda. It further ordered a retrial in a court with competent jurisdiction.
The appellant was found in possession of 71 pieces of elephant tusks and stood trial before the district court of Shinyanga as presided over by a Resident Magistrate. The appellant appealed to the High Court but the appeal was dismissed. He then lodged his appeal to the Court of Appeal under grounds centered on the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court to try the offence because the offence was committed outside the district of the court and that the DPP had no power to delegate his statutory obligation of granting consent to prosecute in other court than the high court, hence, the certificate was void. The Court of Appeal has revised and quashed the lower courts’ proceedings and judgment and set aside the sentence. However, in view of the fact that the appellant faces a serious economic crime and has spent only 4 out of 20 years imprisonment meted out on him, the court ordered that he should be retried by a court of competent jurisdiction constituted by another magistrate with requisite jurisdiction, with immediate dispatch. In case of another conviction, the period that the appellant has so far served in prison, is to be taken into account.
The appellant was convicted by the District Court of Monduli at Monduli in absentia for unlawful possession of government trophy. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for twenty (20) years. The District Court was conferred with jurisdiction in accordance with the law particularly section 26 of the Economic And Organized Crimes Control Act read together with Part 11 of the 1st Schedule to Government Notice No.191 of 1984 and section 12(3) of Cap 200. Since his trial was conducted in absentia upon his arrest he contended that he was not the one who was convicted in absentia because his name was Lomayani and not Loning’o. He appealed to the High Court which reduced the sentence to fifteen years and upheld the conviction on the ground that the appellant’s denial of his name being Loning’o that denied him the opportunity to be informed of his rights under section 226(2) of the Cap. 20 of the Laws. Aggrieved by the decision the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds: the first ground is a complaint that the prosecution evidence did not prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the second is the contravention of section 226(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act for failure to find out the cause of the absence of the accused during trial. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the trial court and the High Court and ordered a retrial.
The appellants were arrested following information that they were in possession of buffalo meat. The appellants disputed any knowledge about the meat affirming they had no license for hunting. They were found in the house where the meat was because they took rest for the night. The meat belonged to the landlord and the appellants alleged that the landlord gave bribe to the police of Tshs. 150,000 that is why he was not charged. The appellants were convicted for alleged being found jointly in possession of government trophies of buffalo and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. There was no corroborated evidence apart from that given by policemen. Appeal allowed, convictions quashed and sentences set aside. The Court ordered immediate release of the appellants from prison.
The appellant was found in possession of a weighing scale while drying meat identified by the witnesses using their experience to be that of a zebra. There was no skin or head to support such claim. The appellant denied that the meat was zebras claiming it to be of hartebeest which was hunted under permit of a friend not present at the crime scene. The appellant was convicted for the counts charged and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. He appealed on the ground that he was not given the right to call witnesses which breached natural justice rules. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence. The judge ordered the immediate release of the appellant from prison.
On 05/10/2010 at 18:00 hours at Warangi area within SENAPA when park rangers were on patrol, they saw people running from the bush. They chased them and managed to arrest one of them. They took him back to the bush that he was running from. When he was searched he was found in possession of one knife, one spear and four animal trapping wires and, two pieces of dried meat, one of zebra and one of wildebeest. He was taken to Lobo Rangers Park and then to Mugumu Police station. The case lasted for three years from the date it was instituted to the date of the judgment. The accused was found guilty and convicted on all the three counts.
The accused were found within SENAPA around Mto Nyabehu area without permission and in possession of one piece of dry meat of wildebeest and one dry skin of wildebeest they were arrested and taken to Mugumu police station. The charges were withdrawn and the accused discharged.
On 02/12/2012, the three accused person were arrested a Meza area within SENAPA and found in possession of weapons and government trophies, namely; 1 knife, two pangas, and five trapping wires, one leg of Zebra and one dry skin of Zebra. Then were taken to Mugumu police station. The case was dismissed under section 225(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.