Dar/ Arusha. The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by two convicts challenging their death sentence over the killing of a bodaboda rider and theft of his motorcycle, ruling that the circumstantial evidence on record was sufficient to link them to the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellants, Mr Nathanael Matei and Mr Martin Tiophil, had challenged their conviction for the murder of Mr Haji Hussein, who was killed and robbed of his motorbike during the incident.
The decision, which upheld a High Court ruling, was delivered on Friday, April 10, 2026, by a panel of three judges, Lugano Mwandambo, Abraham Mwampashi, and Lameck Mlacha, with a copy of the judgment posted on the Judiciary website.
Justice Mwandambo said that after reviewing the record, grounds of appeal, and submissions from both sides, the court was satisfied that circumstantial evidence firmly established the appellants’ involvement in the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Background
The High Court at the Arusha Sub-Registry had earlier convicted the two men of murder and sentenced them to death.
Court records show that the offence occurred on October 11, 2020, in Kiru Ndogo village, Babati District, Manyara Region.
On the day of the incident, the appellants allegedly followed Mr Abdul Hussein (prosecution witness) and hired transport from the Sigino Posta area to Kiru Kibaoni.
Due to the driver’s ill health, the trip was handed over to Mr Hussein, a grain milling operator, who agreed to ferry them.
Prosecution evidence further stated that after transporting the appellants, the victim was never seen alive again.
It was alleged that after arrest, the appellants confessed to killing the deceased and dumping his body in Kiru Hill forest, before stealing his motorcycle and handing it to Mr Said Dinya (a prosecution witness).
Police later recovered the body in Kiru Hill forest in a decomposed state, with hands tied and signs of strangulation on the neck.
A post-mortem report indicated death by suffocation, consistent with strangulation.
The motorcycle was later traced and recovered in Bumbuta village after being used as collateral in a financial transaction.
In their defence, Mr Matei denied the offence, while Mr Tiophi admitted involvement but claimed he was forced to sign a statement he did not understand.
The trial court found that the prosecution case was strongly supported by circumstantial evidence, noting that the deceased had been last seen with the appellants and that his property was later found linked to them.
Appeal
Dissatisfied with the High Court ruling, the appellants filed five grounds of appeal, arguing that the evidence was weak, contradictory, and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
They also challenged alleged confessions, claiming they were obtained under torture and were inadmissible, and criticised the handling of defence evidence.
Their lawyer argued that the High Court erred by relying on circumstantial evidence that did not form a complete chain, excluding the possibility of other perpetrators.
State counsel opposed the appeal, maintaining that the evidence firmly linked the appellants to the crime, citing that they were the last people seen with the deceased and were connected to the disposal of the motorcycle.
Court ruling
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal partly agreed with the appellants on procedural issues surrounding the confession statements.
It found that exhibits P3 and P4 were recorded by a person not proven to have legal authority, rendering them inadmissible.
However, the court ruled that even after excluding those statements, there remained sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
The judges held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt if it forms a complete and unbroken chain pointing to the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The court also relied on the “last seen with the deceased” principle, noting that the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation of what happened to the victim.
It therefore dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction, and confirmed the death sentence.
