Chande v. R. Crim. App. 15-A-71; 14/5/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

Chande v. R. Crim. App. 15-A-71; 14/5/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

The appellant was convicted of stealing c/s 265 of the Penal Code. the trial magistrate stated that he was disgusted at the way the article in issue, a record player, was identified and ordered its forfeiture to the government of the United Republic of Tanzania.

Held: (1) “The appellant was found in very suspicious circumstances with the record player, and its identification by the complainants was not disputed by any one.” (2) “The trial court ordered the forfeiture of the record player and cloth to the government of the United Republic of Tanzania. This error was the result of the Court’s finding that the complainants had not sufficiently identified these items. The learned trial magistrate did not cite any authority empowering him to order such forfeiture as he was duty bound to do, following the rule in Ngulila Mwakanyemba v. R. [1968] H. C. D. 314. For a forfeiture order to hold, it must be explicitly authorised by the law governing the offence in question. This is all trite law and the case of Mohamed Ali v. R. [1969] H. C. D. 54 is just one of the numerous authorities on this point. In the present case the learned Resident Magistrate acted ultra vires in ordering forfeiture. The only authority to make such order in such cases is given by section 300 of the Penal Code” (which authorizes the forfeiture of any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument of housebreaking carried or used in connection with an offence under chapter 29 of the Penal Code.) The article forfeited in this case did not fall under the provision.” (3) “Forfeiture order set aside and articles handed back to complainants.” (4) However appeal dismissed.