Tanzania Court of Appeal upholds death sentence for 2013 cell-break throat slitting

Arusha. Chesco Mveka has failed to escape the death sentence after the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, ruling that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered Selijo Mdundwige by slitting his throat.

The panel of judges noted that evidence demonstrated that Mr Mveka removed Mr Mdundwige from a Ward Office detention cell on the afternoon of April 3, 2013, attacked him with a knife, and subsequently fled the village until his arrest three years later.

Mr Mveka was challenging a judgment delivered by the High Court (Iringa Registry) on March 22, 2023, in Criminal Case No. 54 of 2016.

The ruling upholding the sentence was delivered on Monday, August 24, 2026, by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Rehema Mkuye, Khamis Ramadhan Shaaban, and Cyprian Mkeha, following Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2023.

A copy of the judgment was published on the Judiciary website.

Grounds of appeal

Mr Mveka was charged with murder under Section 196 of the Penal Code, Cap 16, for allegedly killing Mr Mdundwige on April 3, 2013, in Ugenza Village.

The incident followed the arrest of Mr Franco Chaula, Mr Mveka’s brother-in-law, by Ugenza Village Chairman, Mr Joseph Mdana (PW1), on allegations of property destruction.

Mr Chaula was detained overnight on April 2, 2013, and was found severely assaulted the following morning.

He subsequently died whilst receiving treatment at a dispensary, triggering anger and chaos across the village.

During the unrest, Chairman Mdana was seized and detained in a Ward Office cell, where Mr Mdundwige (now deceased), who had initially guarded Mr Chaula, was also brought and held.

PW1 testified that whilst in the cell with Mr Mdundwige during the afternoon, he saw the appellant open the door armed with a knife, pull Mr Mdundwige out, and push him to the ground, allowing PW1 an opportunity to escape.

PW2, an Executive Officer from a neighbouring village, Natalion Mdundige, corroborated PW1’s testimony.

Standing 10 paces away, he witnessed Mr Mveka slitting Mr Mdundwige’s throat before fleeing until his arrest in 2016.

The defence

In his defence, Mr Mveka relied on an alibi, claiming that on the day of the incident, he was working on his farm and later went to drink a local brew.

He claimed he left the drinking spot around 4:00 pm and was informed by a group of people that Mr Mdundwige had been killed, adding that he returned to his farm and never fled the village.

After evaluating both sides, the High Court concluded the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, relying on PW2's testimony and evidence of the appellant’s flight following the incident.

Appeal and ruling

Dissatisfied, Mr Mveka lodged an appeal citing six grounds, including claims that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, contradictions between testimonies, failure of the medical doctor to testify, and non-consideration of his alibi.

The appellate court emphasised that in a murder trial, the prosecution must prove the death of the deceased, that the death was unlawful, that the accused caused it, and that the act was committed with malice aforethought.

Regarding the absence of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, the judges agreed that the High Court erred in relying on a post-mortem report admitted during an earlier trial that was later nullified.

The court expunged the report from the record but held that its removal did not negate other evidence establishing the death.

Justice Mkuye noted that PW2 witnessed the appellant slitting Mr Mdundwige’s throat, citing precedents establishing that medical evidence is not the sole means to prove death.

“In this matter, based on the eyewitness evidence of PW2, we are satisfied that Mr Mdundwige died and that his death was unlawful following the slitting of his throat,” stated Justice Mkuye.

On identity, the judges noted PW2 had known the appellant since childhood, a fact the appellant never disputed.

Given the incident occurred in broad daylight, the court ruled out mistaken identity.

Regarding malice aforethought, the panel considered the use of a knife, targeting the deceased's throat, Mr Mveka's remark (“You are still breathing”), the nature of the attack, and his subsequent flight.

“Considering all these factors, we find that the appellant killed the deceased with malice aforethought. Looking at the evidence as a whole, we are satisfied that the prosecution proved its case beyond doubt,” the Justice added.

The appellate court concluded there were no grounds to interfere with the lower court's sentence, subsequently dismissing the appeal.