The court identified significant flaws in the judgment of the court a quo, rendering the retrial order for the appellant ineffective.
Firstly, a discrepancy emerged between the judgment and the charge sheet. While the judgment referred to four charges related to unauthorized entry into Tanzania mainland under specific legal provisions, the charge sheet indicated that only the first count was based on those provisions. The remaining three counts were grounded in different legal provisions.
Secondly, despite facing four distinct charges established by different legal provisions, the appellant's offenses were not individually scrutinized in the court a quo. Instead, a broad conclusion found the appellant guilty of all four offenses, contravening section 312 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act.
Lastly, the court ruled that recalling a witness for further examination without court leave violated section 147 of the Evidence Act
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – protection of asylum seekers - application of section 312 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act
This appeal challenged the District Court of Chato's decision convicting the appellant on four counts related to unlawful entry into Tanzania. The appellant raised three main arguments on appeal. First, that the trial proceedings were flawed, citing non-compliance with legal procedures in admitting oral and documented evidence. Second, the appellant claimed incomplete trial records, pointing to missing documents. Lastly, the appellant argued insufficient evidence to warrant the conviction.
The court upheld the appeal and quashed the conviction and the resulting sentence of the court a quo.
The court relied on section 312 of the Criminal Procedure Court Code Act which sets out the requirement for a judgment in law.
Moreover, the court relied on the case of Ally Bakari Danga vs Republic.