Ms Fredrick was allegedly killed on March 18, 2019, in Ungindoni Mjimwema, Temeke District, Dar es Salaam, and her body was recovered the same night in Buza Sigara Relini.
Arusha. Who was responsible for the killing of Happiness Fredrick, a first-year University of Dodoma (UDOM) student? That question remains unresolved after the Court of Appeal overturned the death sentence previously imposed on Idrisa Mwangobola.
Ms Fredrick was allegedly killed on March 18, 2019, in Ungindoni Mjimwema, Temeke District, Dar es Salaam, and her body was recovered the same night in Buza Sigara Relini.
In criminal case number 75/2022, the High Court in Dar es Salaam found Mwangobola guilty of murder and sentenced him to death by hanging.
The sentence was overturned on December 17, 2025, by a panel of three Court of Appeal judges sitting in Dar es Salaam: Mary Levira, Laila Mgonya, and Gerson Mdemu.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant’s argument that the warning statement allegedly recorded by the police was obtained unlawfully.
It also noted confusion over who wrote the statement and whether it had been read to the appellant after recording.
Judge Mgonya said the defects rendered the warning statement invalid and therefore it was excluded as evidence, concluding the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond doubt.
The judges also quashed two other exhibits claimed to be the deceased’s belongings found in the appellant’s room, as the evidence was obtained illegally. With these exhibits annulled, the court found no evidence linking Mwangobola to the murder.
The panel further criticised the prosecution for failing to summon Ms Dorice, who had identified Mwangobola and provided the initial report leading to his arrest.
On these grounds, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court judgment, and ordered Mwangobola’s release unless held for other lawful reasons.
Basis of the appeal
During the High Court trial, the prosecution called nine witnesses and tendered five exhibits, while the appellant was the sole defence witness.
The first prosecution witness, the deceased’s father, Fredrick Francis, said Happiness had planned to return to Dodoma on March 19, 2019.
She went to Ubungo Bus Terminal to buy a ticket and later called to confirm she had purchased a Kimbinyiko bus ticket.
That was their last conversation, and he did not see her again until identifying her body at Temeke Regional Referral Hospital.
The second witness, investigator Emmanuel Dimoso, said the appellant was linked to the murder after the deceased’s friend, Ms Dorice, identified him as her lover and reported her death.
On March 21, 2019, Dimoso and the fourth witness arrested the appellant at Buza Catholic Church, where he had gone to pay respects. The appellant admitted killing her and dumping the body.
The third witness, Sergeant Jovin of Chang’ombe Police Station, said he received a call from the local leader in Buzsa about a body found in the area, after which it was transported to Temeke Regional Referral Hospital.
The fourth witness, OC-CID SP Kwakaya Jonas, said he and Dimoso arrested the appellant and his mother at Buza Catholic Church.
In front of his mother, the appellant admitted killing the deceased in Ungindoni Kigamboni and dumping her body.
Officers also seized the vehicle used to transport the body and some of her belongings from the accused’s house.
The ninth witness, retired police officer Corporal Peter (E 6053), said he recorded the appellant’s warning statement, during which the appellant, after being informed of his rights, chose to have his father present and admitted killing Ms Fredrick.
Defence
The appellant claimed the deceased was not his lover but a fellow student at Jitegemee Secondary School from 2012 to 2015.
He said his involvement arose because he was a friend and denied ever admitting to killing her.
He also alleged that the items claimed to have been taken from his room were planted by the police.
After hearing both sides, the High Court concluded there was sufficient evidence showing the appellant’s guilt and sentenced him to death by hanging.
Appeal
During the appeal hearing, the appellant was represented by two lawyers, and the respondent by four government lawyers.
The appellant submitted additional appeal documents and written submissions.
He raised six grounds, including that the search and arrest were unlawful, the warning statement was illegally recorded, and the court failed to rule on the prosecution’s failure to summon Dorice, a key witness.
He also argued that the defence evidence was inadequately considered and that the circumstantial evidence relied upon was weak, insufficient, and fragmented, failing to prove guilt beyond a doubt.
The respondent’s lawyers opposed the appeal, arguing the search was lawful, the case had been proven beyond doubt, and urged the court to dismiss the appeal as baseless.
