Maneno and his co-accused were found guilty and sentenced by the Butiama District Court to 30 years in prison for the offence
Arusha. The High Court’s Musoma Zone has upheld a 30-year prison sentence handed down to Maneno Chanila and Joseph Daud, who were convicted of armed robbery involving gold carbon worth Sh109 million.
Court records show that the two, along with four others (who were not appellants in this case), committed the offence on April 7, 2024, at Magunga Village in Butiama District, Mara Region.
Maneno, also known by the nickname “Professor”, and his co-accused were found guilty and sentenced by the Butiama District Court to 30 years in prison for the offence.
Delivering judgement on August 29, 2025, Justice Marlin Komba dismissed their appeal, ruling that the defence failed to weaken the prosecution’s case and that the punishment was not excessive, given the provisions of the law.
The appellants had been convicted under Section 287A of the Penal Code, which provides for a minimum sentence of 30 years for armed robbery.
The case stemmed from an incident in which the convicts, together with four others, robbed gold carbon belonging to one Patrick Ryoba.
During the robbery, they assaulted a man identified as Joh with machetes, stealing Sh85,000 in cash and three mobile phones belonging to Chacha Wambura.
In their appeal, the convicts presented seven grounds, including claims that the trial court erred in convicting them without sufficient and credible evidence directly linking them to the offence.
They also argued that the court relied on disputed caution statements and circumstantial evidence, while disregarding their defence.
Representing the prosecution, State Attorney Beatrice Mgumba opposed the appeal, stressing that the trial court had properly applied the law and that the appellants’ defence was weak.
She argued that the prosecution’s witnesses, particularly the eighth and thirteenth, were credible and instrumental in linking the appellants to the crime.
Justice Komba noted that the prosecution’s case was largely based on circumstantial evidence and caution statements, but maintained that the defence was not strong enough to create reasonable doubt.
He also cited DNA evidence linking one of the convicts to the crime scene.
“Upon reviewing the case and the applicable law under Section 287A of the Penal Code, I find that the appellants were properly convicted and the 30-year sentence imposed is neither unlawful nor excessive,” the judge ruled, dismissing the appeal in its entirety.
