Arusha. Anger can have devastating consequences. Such may describe the fate of Mr Tluway Shauri after he killed his neighbour’s three-month-old child, John Reginald, by throwing him into a large water storage container.
The incident followed a quarrel between Mr Shauri and the child’s mother, Ms Luiza Elibariki, who testified as the fifth prosecution witness during the trial.
She told the court that two days before the tragedy they had quarreled, during which the appellant allegedly warned that he would do something she would never forget in her lifetime.
According to the prosecution, on March 9, 2021, Ms Elibariki left her baby in the house while she went to a nearby river to wash clothes. The door to the room was closed but not locked.
While she was at the river, two women approached her and said that a baby’s body had been seen floating in a water container. When she rushed home, she discovered it was her own child.
The High Court, sitting at the Manyara Sub-Registry, later found Mr Shauri guilty of murder and sentenced him to death by hanging on August 25, 2023.
His attempt to challenge the conviction and sentence failed after the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court decision.
The judgment, delivered on Tuesday, March 3, 2026, was issued by a panel of three judges; Lugano Mwandambo, Abraham Mwampashi and Lameck Mlacha. A copy of the ruling was later published on the court’s website.
Justice Mwampashi said that after reviewing the proceedings and grounds of appeal, the court was satisfied that the circumstantial evidence presented during the trial, together with the appellant’s confession, formed a complete chain pointing to his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
How it happened
According to the prosecution, the child’s body was discovered floating in a large water storage container at a house owned by Mr Michael Shauri, near the baby’s mother’s home.
The body was later taken to Dareda Hospital where the sixth prosecution witness, Dr Astery Alexander, conducted a post-mortem examination.
The doctor testified that the infant had swallowed a large quantity of water, which caused the lungs to fail and led to suffocation.
The fifth witness, Ms Elibariki, told the court that two days before the incident she had quarrelled with the appellant, who threatened to do something unforgettable.
That threat later formed part of the basis for his arrest and prosecution.
Court records show that no witness directly saw the appellant committing the crime.
Much of the prosecution case therefore relied on circumstantial evidence and a caution statement recorded by the second witness, in which the appellant admitted immersing the baby in water.
Defence
In his defence, the appellant claimed that on the day of the incident he had been away from home and spent the entire day at work.
He also denied making the caution statement, insisting that he never admitted committing the offence during police interrogation.
Appeal
In his appeal, Mr Shauri raised four grounds challenging the High Court decision.
Among them was a claim that the trial court had erred by relying on an exhibit obtained in violation of Sections 50 and 51 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).
He also argued that the evidence presented during the trial was weak and insufficient to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Judges’ decision
Justice Mwampashi said the appellate court examined the complaint regarding alleged violations of Sections 50 and 51 of the CPA during the recording of the caution statement.
The court found that the interrogation had been conducted within the legally permissible timeframe and the argument lacked merit.
On the question of relying on a retracted confession, the court held that the High Court had properly applied established legal principles.
The judges observed that a retracted confession can still be relied upon if the court is satisfied it was made voluntarily and is truthful.
“After our evaluation, we are satisfied that the confession was true and sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of the third and fifth witnesses,” said Justice Mwampashi.
The Court of Appeal also addressed the appellant’s argument that the prosecution case was based solely on weak circumstantial evidence.
It held that although no witness saw the crime being committed, the circumstantial evidence, considered with the appellant’s confession, formed a complete and consistent chain pointing to his guilt.
The judges therefore concluded that the High Court had not erred in its evaluation of the evidence.
They further ruled there was no legal or evidentiary error that would justify the appellate court interfering with the trial court’s judgment.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lacking merit and upheld both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the High Court.
