The Respondents were jointly and together tried in the
Resident Magistrate’s Court of Simiyu at Bariadi for disturbing the habitat of
biological diversity contrary to sections 188 (c) and 193 (1) (a) of the
Environmental Management Act No. 20 of 2004 (the Act). The Respondents having
denied the aforesaid accusation, a full trial ensued. In their defence, all the
Respondents gave evidence which was supported by one witness. The trial court
convicted the Respondents of the charged offence and sentenced each of them to
pay a fine of Tshs. 1,000,000.00 or, in default, to serve a two years’ term of
imprisonment. In addition, the court, purportedly acting in terms of section
193 (1) (a) of the Act, ordered that the seized cattle and donkeys be forfeited
to the Government.
In their appeal before the High Court, the Respondents raised
eight grounds of complaint. In essence, they contended that they were wrongly
tried and convicted on an incurably defective charge; that the trial court failed
to evaluate the evidence on record; that the prosecution case failed to pass
the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and finally, that the
forfeiture order was wrongly made under the provisions of section 193 (1) (a)
of the Act.
In its judgment, the first appellate court mainly dealt with the
propriety of the charge against the Respondents. The learned first appellate
Judge agreed with the Respondents that the impugned charge was so defective
that it could not be saved by the curative provisions of section 388 of the
CPA. Premised on the above finding, the learned appellate Judge, then nullified
the trial proceedings in entirety and, in consequence, quashed and set aside
the conviction, sentence and forfeiture order against the Respondents.
Consequently, the learned Judge allowed the appeal and ordered a
refund of the fine of Tshs. 1,000,000.00 paid by each Respondent. She further
ordered that the forfeited livestock be handed back to the Respondents. The
aforesaid judgment aggrieved the Republic and the DPP appealed to this Court.
Initially, the appeal was predicated on three grounds of appeal, but at the
hearing of the appeal, the Appellant abandoned the said grounds and with leave
of the Court argued a new ground thus: that
the first appellate court erred in law in ordering that the forfeited livestock be returned to the Respondents.