Jaji ambaye alihusika KUTENGUA maamuzi mazuri ya mahakama Kuu ya KUZUIA Wakurugenzi (maDED) kutosimamia chaguzi nchini, AKARUHUSU, ndiye aliyehusika pia kumwachia SABAYA leo. Huyu Jaji ndiye Mwenyekiti wa Tume ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi (NEC) wa sasa. Aliteuliwa na rais SSH…
Licha ya ukamataji wa wahujumu uchumi kutokuwa kazi ya DC, kazi hiyo aliifanya nje ya eneo lake la kazi: Arusha badala ya Hai! Itstuchukua miaka mingi sana kutoka nje ya msitu huu! (extract from X) formerly Tweeter
Sabaya na genge lake wachomoka kwa sababu za kiufundi upande wa mashtaka na polisi hawakuweza kuunda ushahidi wa ku-move bench la majaji kuwa ushahidi upo usiotia shaka kuwatia hatiani warufani
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA
AT ARUSHA
fCORAM: MWAMBEGELE. J.A., KITUSI, J.A. And MGQNYA, J.AJ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2022
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS...........................APPELLANT
VERSUS
LENGAI OLE SABAYA
SILVESTER WENCESLAUS NYEGU I .................................RESPONDENTS
DANIEL GABRIEL MBURA
(Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania, at Arusha)
(Kisanya, J.)
dated the 6th day of May, 2022
in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2021
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1st & 17th November, 2023
MWAMBEGELE, J.A,:
The three respondents, Lengai Ole Sabaya, Sylvester Wenceslaus
Nyegu and Daniel Gabriel Mbura, were arraigned in the Court of the Resident
Magistrate of Arusha for three counts of armed robbery contrary to section
287A of the Penal Code. After a full trial, the trial court (Amworo, SRM),
convicted them as charged in the second count. In the first and third counts, the learned trial Senior Resident Magistrate, was of the view that the offence of armed robbery had not been proved. In its stead, the learned trial Senior
Page 1
.....
Richard Estomihi Kimei and Another v. Republic (Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2016) [2018] TZCA 210 (11 October, 2018) TANZLII at pp. 6 and 8 where we held that the offence of gang rape cannot be a substitute of an alternative verdict to that of rape. She thus implored us to follow suit and hold that the offence of gang robbery cannot be a substitute for the offenceof armed robbery. She beseeched us to so hold and allow this ground of appeal.
With regard to the variance between the charge and evidence, the learned Senior State Attorney admitted that, indeed, the coins and EFD machine did not feature in the charge but featured prominently well in evidence, that they were among the items allegedly stolen by the respondents. The same was the case with a handkerchief and a wallet. The learned counsel submitted that the High Court Judge held that this variance was fatal. She argued that there was that minor variance but did not go to the root of the matter and did not occasion any injustice to the respondents and, therefore, the High Court should have found so. After all, she added, Bakari Rahibu Msangi (PW6) did not say a wallet was stolen from him. The High Court thus erred in stating that a wallet was one of the items stolen from PW6. She relied on our decision in Joshua Joseph @ Paulo v......
Page 3
.....whether the Tshs. 1,000,000/= referred to by Mohamed Saad Hajirin (PWl) was inclusive in the Tshs. 2,769,000/= mentioned in the charge sheet.
Another alleged contradiction referred to by the High Court is with regard to the identification parade which was supervised by Insp. Evance Francis Mwamengo (PW9) to the effect that PW6 identified Deogratias Peter and
Daniel Bura while the testimony of PW9 and Exh. P2 show that the suspect who was identified was Daniel Laurent Bura; Deogratias Peter is not mentioned. The learned Principal State Attorney clarified that the learned High Court Judge misapprehended the evidence in that he did not realize there were two identification parades conducted during which Deogratias Peter was identified in one and Daniel Laurent Bura was identified in another.
Another contradiction referred to by the High Court Judge, Ms.
Luwongo went on submitting, was in respect of the name of the third respondent; while the charge sheet refers to him as Daniel Gabriel Mbura,PW6 and Exh. P2 refer to him as Daniel Bura and Daniel Laurent Bura,
respectively. The learned Principal State Attorney submitted that there were
essentially no contradictions and the minute
discrepancy regarding the
name of the third respondent can be glossed over as minor and did not go.....
Page 9
READ MORE :
Read the full judgment sheet, a total of 34 pages
Source :
Director of Public Prosecutions vs Lengai Ole Sabaya & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2022) [2023] TZCA 17853 (17 November 2023)