Joao Candido De Oliveira vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2020) [2023] TZCA 17919 (11 December 2023)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court addressed the trial court's failure to apply the 2017 amendment to section 15(1)(a) of the DCEA, which mandates life imprisonment for trafficking. It invoked its revisional powers to correct the sentence, replacing 30 years with life imprisonment due to the offense's date post-amendment.
• The court assessed whether the trial court's failure to provide an interpreter during the arrest and initial proceedings, due to the appellant's limited English/Swahili proficiency, violated his right to a fair trial. The court found no prejudice as the appellant was aware of the charges and later received interpretation services during committal and trial, including during the signing of the seizure certificate by an interpreter.
• The court examined if the interpreter's qualifications were assessed. The record indicated no complaints from the appellant or his advocate about the interpreters' competence during the trial. The court concluded the claim was an afterthought and found no merit in the argument that the interpreters' qualifications were insufficient.
• The court evaluated claims of inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, and PW6. It found no material contradictions and emphasized that minor discrepancies are common in human testimony and do not affect the overall reliability of the evidence. The prosecution's case was corroborated by the appellant's own admissions during cross-examination.
• The court reviewed the handling of exhibit P10, noting that its movements were documented through handing-over certificates (exhibits P8, P11, P13) and that the appellant never raised concerns about tampering. The chain of custody was deemed intact, with the exhibit's integrity confirmed by witnesses at all stages.

Holdings

• The court revised the sentence from thirty (30) years to life imprisonment under the DCEA amendment, as the offense occurred after the amendment's effective date (1st December, 2017).
• The court found the DPP consent was properly endorsed by the Deputy Registrar on 4th May, 2020, confirming the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the case. The seventh ground of appeal is dismissed as unfounded.
• The third, fourth, eighth, and ninth grounds challenging witness credibility and chain of custody were rejected. The court found no material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and confirmed the chain of custody for exhibit P10 was properly maintained.
• The first and second grounds of appeal regarding language barriers and interpreter qualifications were dismissed. The court held the appellant was not prejudiced as he was informed via an interpreter after arrest and had representation during proceedings.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The Court of Appeal emphasized that the prosecution's case against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt, despite minor contradictions in witness testimonies. It reiterated that contradictions in non-material details do not undermine the credibility of evidence if the overall case remains substantiated.
• The court invoked its revisional powers under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to correct the trial court's sentencing error, ensuring compliance with the amended Drug Control and Enforcement Act and the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act's statutory requirements.
• The court addressed the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness due to language barriers during arrest and trial. It concluded that the non-compliance with statutory requirements (e.g., informing the accused in his language) did not prejudice the appellant as he was aware of the charges and participated in proceedings with interpreters.

Precedent Name

• Marmo Slaa @ Hofu & 3 Others v. Republic
• Dickson Elia Nsamba Shapwata & Another v. Republic
• EX.G.2434 PC. George v. Republic
• Lilian Jesus Fortes v. Republic
• Wallenstein Alvares Santillan v Republic

Cited Statute

• Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, Cap 200 (the EOCCA) as amended by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No. 3 of 2016
• Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 20 (the CPA)
• Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141 (the AJA)
• Drugs Control and Enforcement Act No. 5 of 2015 (the DCEA) as amended by the Drug Control and Enforcement (Amendment) Act. No. 15 of 2017

Judge Name

• L. M. Mlacha
• R. J. Kerefu
• B. M. A. Sehel

Passage Text

• In the circumstances, we invoke our revisional powers bestowed on the Court under section 4 (2) of the AJA to set aside the sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment imposed on the appellant and replace it with life imprisonment.
• We are therefore satisfied that the chain of custody of exhibit P10 was properly established by the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6. Indeed, it is also on record that the appellant was involved at the time of seizure and packing of the same at KIA and later at the RCO's office.
• We are not prepared to blindly apply section 48 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act as it stood before amendment, without sense of reason, while aware of the fact that what caused the noncompliance is language barrier... In this case we are satisfied that the appellant knew the reasons for her arrest and that, in our conclusion, cures the noncompliance.