Explore Mzumbe University’s World-Class Research
Welcome to the Mzumbe University Institutional Repository (MU-IR). This platform collects, organizes, preserves, showcases, and archives Mzumbe University’s digitized special collections and research materials, providing open access to support learning, teaching, and world-class research.
Communities in MUIR
Select a community to browse its collections.
Recent Submissions
Anania Bukuku Appellant Vs The Republic Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 65 Of 2012
(High Court of Mbeya - Tanzania., 2013) Rutakangwa,l.A.,; Mjasiri, l.A"; Juma, l.A.
An incident of rape occurred at Ilomba area in Mbeya Region at around 16.00 hours on May 3, 2006. The appellant, Anania s/o Bukuku
was alleged to have raped one Wambi d/o Mbwete. The appellant was subsequently charged and convicted of the offence of rape contrary to
sections 130 and 131(1) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment and was ordered to pay Shs. 100,000/=
compensation to the victim. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court at Mbeya, (Mmilla, J.),
hence this second appeal. The appellant denied any involvement in the commission of the rape.
Meck Malegesi and Mazura Ndaro Applients Vs The Republic Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2011
(High Court of Appeal Mwanza - Tanzania, 2013) Juma, L.A; Msoffe, L.A.,
The appellants, Meck Malegesi and Mazura Ndarowere in the District Court of Bunda charged with the offence of stealing by agent contrary to section 273(b) of the Penal Code, Cap. 16. This section states: 273. If the thing stolen is any of the fo/owing things/ that is to say:(a)... (b) property which has been entrusted to the offender either alone or jointly with any other person for him to 1 retain in safe custody or to apply, payor deliver it or any part of it or any of its proceeds for any purpose or to any person; the whole or part of the proceeds arising from any disposal of any property which has been received by the offender by virtue of a power of attorney for the disposal such power of attorney having been received by the offender with a direction that the proceeds should be
applied to any purpose or paid to any person specified in the direction, the offender is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
Mechmar Corporation(Malysia) Berhard Appleant Vs VIP Engneering and Marketing ltd Respondent
(The Court of Appeal of Dar es salaam -Tanzania, 2011) Mbarouk,l.A; Kileo, l.A.,; MlasiriI, l.A.
This is an application for review. By notice of motion, the Court is moved under Rule 66 (1) (b) and Rule48 (1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 and Article 13 (6) (a) of the Constitution of the United Republicof Tanzania on the ground that:
The Court erred in dismissing Civil Application No. 179 of 2008 without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard on the matter, particularly given the fact that at the material time,
the applicant represented was sufficiently by a lawful authorized attorney in the person of Martha Kaveni Renju, the receiver, in terms of Rules 30 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009
Mbeho Ngwembe, Matonya Duka , Gangota, Gaitan Adam and Mganga Vs The Republican Respondent
(The Court of Appeal Dodoma - Tanzania, 2010) Kileo, l.A; Massat, l.A; Oriyo, l.A.
This is a second appeal. The appellants were convicted as charged by the District Court of Kondoa, of the offence of armed robbery contrary to sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code, Cap 16, R.E.2002. Each was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence of 30 years imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.he appellants' appeals to the High Court against conviction and sentence were unsuccessful. The learned first appellate judge struck out the appeals for being time barred.
Gumbo Omari Vs. The Republic Criminal Application No.3 of 2009
(Court of Appeal of Tanga- Tanzania, 2010) Munuo, J.A.; Msoffe, J.A.; Kaji, J.A
This is an application for extension of time to file a review. The applicant appeared in person. The respondent Republic is represented by Mr. Tumaini Kweka, learned State Attorney. The judgment which the applicant wants to challenge in a review was delivered on 3rd June, 2005. Among the reasons which the applicant has given in his affidavit in support of the application is that he failed to file the application in time because of being in prison. That he was not satisfied with the judgment. The application was filed on 29/05/2009.