Biloza S/o Robert vs DPP, Criminal appeal no 9 of 2019

This case among other things provide for Remedy when two first court contradict on matter of evidence in accused case. The court had this to say:

Having found contradictions and inconsistencies of testimonies of
PW1, PW2, PW3, and PW4 in Criminal Case No. 294 of 2016 (Resident Magistrate’s Court of Katavi), the first appellate High Court Judge (Nyangarika, J.) should not have ordered a retrial that would allow the prosecution to learn from its evidential gaps, by removing contradictions
and inconsistencies in order to convict.

In our opinion, that order for retrial was, in the circumstances of this appeal, not in the best interests of justice because it prejudiced the appellant.


We conclude our decision by considering the legal consequences of failing to consider an accused person’s defence. This ground alone is
sufficient to dispose of this second appeal without considering submissions on other grounds.


In GODFREY RICHARD V. R., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2008
(unreported), the appellant complained that both the trial court and the High Court (on the first appeal), did not consider his defence.

On the second appeal, this Court noted that the trial magistrate referred to the defence case but only by way of summarizing, which does not amount to
consideration. We ruled that failure to consider the defence case is as good as not hearing the accused and is fatal.