Arusha. The High Court has dismissed an appeal by a man serving a 30-year jail term for rape, throwing out claims that the Musoma District Court denied him a Sukuma interpreter despite his inability to understand Kiswahili.
Justice Kamazima Kafanabo, sitting at the High Court’s Musoma Sub-Registry, ruled on July 13, 2026, that the trial record clearly showed Komanya Makoye responded to all charges in Kiswahili without indicating any difficulty.
The court noted that Mr Makoye cross-examined prosecution witnesses, delivered his defence, and answered all questions in Kiswahili without suggesting he did not understand the proceedings.
Justice Kafanabo also dismissed Mr Makoye’s claim that the case arose from a Sh2 million debt dispute between him and the survivor’s father.
The judge ruled that the lower court had already considered the defence and rightly found that it failed to raise reasonable doubt against the prosecution’s evidence.
While upholding the 30-year prison sentence for rape, the High Court quashed Mr Makoye's conviction and separate five-year sentence for impregnating a student, ruling that the latter charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The original case
According to evidence presented in the lower court, Mr Makoye repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the 16-year-old student between January and September 2025 at Kwibara Village in Musoma District, Mara Region. She was later found to be pregnant.
Following his conviction, the District Court sentenced Mr Makoye to 30 years for rape and five years for impregnating a student, ordering the sentences to run concurrently.
The appeal
Dissatisfied, Mr Makoye filed an appeal on seven grounds. He argued that his conviction relied on uncorroborated evidence, prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent testimonies, the case stemmed from a Sh2 million debt, DNA evidence linking him to the pregnancy was missing, and he was denied a Sukuma interpreter.
High Court’s decision
After reviewing the submissions and the trial record, Justice Kafanabo emphasised that a first appellate court is duty-bound to re-evaluate all evidence to reach its own conclusions, noting that the prosecution must prove criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt.
The court found the survivor's evidence credible and corroborated by the medical officer who examined her and produced Police Form No. 3 (PF3).
The judge added that the testimonies of the survivor and her father firmly established she was 16 when the incident occurred, satisfying the legal criteria for statutory rape of a minor under 18.
The court noted that the law permits reliance on a sexual offence survivor's sole testimony without further corroboration, provided the court finds it truthful and credible.
Justice Kafanabo said the survivor detailed how she was lured into the relationship, including the locations and times of the sexual acts, which Mr Makoye failed to challenge during cross-examination.
Consequently, the court upheld the 30-year sentence. However, on the second count, the judge noted that while the survivor was a Form One student at Mugango Secondary School and one month pregnant, this alone did not prove Mr Makoye caused the pregnancy.
The judge ruled that since Mr Makoye denied paternity, the prosecution needed to present DNA results or other compelling links.
"In the circumstances of this case, the charge of impregnating a student was not proved beyond reasonable doubt," the judgment reads.
The court subsequently quashed that conviction but ordered Makoye to serve the 30-year rape sentence.
