Arusha. The Court of Appeal has upheld the death sentence imposed on Paulo Laizer after he was found guilty of murdering his wife, Ndomononi Siyaga.
On July 27, 2022, Paulo reportedly left home at around 10am accompanied by his mother-in-law, saying they were going to cut branches to build a cattle shed before heading to the forest. However, Paulo returned home at about 8pm without his wife.
After a search in the forest, the deceased’s body was found covered with tree branches and grass, with a deep cut wound on the neck and a piece of cloth stuffed into her mouth.
The ruling dismissing Paulo’s appeal against the sentence was delivered yesterday, April 16, 2026, by a panel of three judges—Lugano Mwandambo, Abraham Mwampashi and Lameck Mlacha—sitting in Arusha.
Justice Mlacha said that after carefully reviewing the evidence presented at the Resident Magistrate’s Court in Arusha and the submissions from both sides, the Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the lower court’s decision.
The court said the appellant had attempted to flee, which suggested guilt, and noted that during questioning he admitted killing his wife while rejecting his defence that she had been killed by hyenas.
Earlier, Paulo had been charged before the Resident Magistrate’s Court in Arusha with murder contrary to Section 196 of the Penal Code.
It was alleged that on February 27, 2022, at Ngereyani Emboong’eti “A” area in Longido District, he killed his wife by cutting her neck with a sharp object.
During the early stages of the case, the appellant admitted the offence, but due to the gravity of the charge of murder—which carries a mandatory death penalty—the court proceeded to hear evidence in order to establish guilt in accordance with the law.
The prosecution presented eight witnesses and two exhibits: a post-mortem report and a sketch map of the crime scene.
In his defence, the appellant testified as the sole witness and did not present any exhibit.
The fourth witness, the appellant’s mother Naishoka Laizer, told the court that on the day of the incident she saw her son leaving home with the deceased heading to the forest to cut branches.
She said that later that night the appellant returned home alone without explaining the whereabouts of his wife.
This raised concern among family members, prompting her to send another son to search for the deceased. He met the fifth witness who said he had seen the appellant and Ndomononi heading to the forest.
The witness then accompanied the second witness, Supeti Philipo, the village chairman, to the forest where they found the body covered with grass and tree branches.
Upon closer inspection, they discovered the deceased had a cut wound on the neck and a piece of cloth stuffed in her mouth.
Supeti said he informed the village executive officer before the matter was reported to the police, who went to the scene and took the body to hospital.
Another witness, the sixth witness who is a relative of the appellant, told the court that at around 4:45pm that day Paulo left the house saying he was going to the market to buy snuff and soap.
When asked how he would buy the items given that the sellers had already left the market, he did not respond and left.
A doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination said the cause of death was excessive bleeding resulting from the cut wound which severed major blood vessels in the neck using a sharp object.
Since Paulo was a suspect and had disappeared from his home, a search operation began. He was eventually arrested while travelling in a vehicle and taken to a police station.
In his defence, Paulo admitted going to the forest with his wife but denied killing her.
He claimed that after entering the forest they were attacked by a group of hyenas which dragged his wife away into the forest, and that he later went to the market to seek help but failed to find any assistance.
He further claimed that while moving around the village searching for help, a police vehicle appeared and he was arrested on suspicion of murder.
However, the lower court rejected his defence that hyenas killed his wife, stating that hyenas could not have used a sharp object to cut the deceased’s neck, nor could they have placed a piece of cloth in her mouth or covered the body with grass and branches.
The court also noted that the appellant was the last person seen with the deceased while she was alive and failed to give a satisfactory explanation about what happened.
Based on the circumstantial evidence, the court sentenced him to death by hanging, a decision that the appellant challenged at the Court of Appeal.
In the appeal, Paulo, through his lawyer, argued that the evidence was insufficient, the witnesses were unreliable, and that his defence had not been properly considered.
The State opposed the appeal, insisting that the evidence presented proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution told the court that the appellant had admitted committing the offence as shown on page 23 of the record of appeal, and that the conviction was supported by circumstantial evidence as well as the legal principle of the last person seen with the deceased.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Mlacha said the court was satisfied that Ndomononi died an unnatural death, noting that her body had a wound, was covered with grass and branches, and that she had gone to the forest with her husband while still alive.
He said the key issue before the court was to determine who killed the deceased since no prosecution witness had directly witnessed the killing and the case relied on circumstantial evidence.
The court also referred to the legal principle of the “last person seen with the deceased”, stating that where an accused person was the last to be seen with the deceased, they bear the responsibility of providing a satisfactory explanation regarding the circumstances of the death.
Justice Mlacha said the appellant’s account of a hyena attack lacked logic and supporting evidence and had therefore been rightly rejected by the lower court.
He added that the appellant’s conduct after the incident—including failing to inform family members, moving around the village without explaining the incident and attempting to flee—pointed to guilt.
The court concluded that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and pointed directly to the appellant as the perpetrator of the murder without the possibility of another person being involved.
“It was the evidence of the fourth witness that the appellant returned home at about 8pm alone and could not explain where his wife was. He later said he was going to the market to buy snuff despite being told the seller was not there, and eventually admitted the offence. These actions are inconsistent with innocence,” Justice Mlacha said.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the death sentence against Paulo.
