Babati. The High Court in Dar es Salaam Sub-Registry has allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and set aside a decision of the Ilala District Court, which had acquitted Mr Nurdini Juma, who was charged with trafficking 314.45 grammes of cannabis.
The court overturned the acquittal and ordered that the case be remitted to the lower court for retrial before a different magistrate, allowing the accused to enter his defence.
In a judgment delivered on Friday, May 29, 2026, Justice Hamidu Mwanga said the trial magistrate erred in law by finding that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case and acquitting the accused before he was called to enter his defence.
Mr Juma was charged with trafficking narcotic drugs, specifically 314.45 grammes of cannabis, contrary to the law.
It was alleged that on February 15, 2025, at Kivule Njia Panda ya Shule in Ilala District, he was found in possession of the drugs.
During the trial, the prosecution called six witnesses, including the Government Chemist, who confirmed through laboratory analysis that the exhibits were cannabis weighing 314.45 grammes.
Other witnesses testified on the preservation and transportation of the exhibits, maintaining an unbroken chain of custody.
The court also heard that the arresting officer acted on confidential information and proceeded to the accused’s residence in Kivule.
It was further stated that a neutral local witness was present during the search operation.
During the search, 10 bundles of suspected cannabis were allegedly recovered from the room occupied by the accused.
However, after the prosecution closed its case, the Ilala District Court ruled that no prima facie case had been established.
The magistrate held that the arresting officer was not credible and that the search witness was not independent because he was a neighbour of the accused.
Appeal
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the DPP appealed to the High Court, arguing that the evidence adduced was sufficient to require the accused to enter his defence.
In Appeal No. 912/2026, the DPP raised three grounds, including that the trial magistrate erred in law in finding prosecution witness four not credible, that witness six was not independent, and that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Court ruling
After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Mwanga said that at the stage of determining a prima facie case, the court is not required to determine guilt, but only whether there is sufficient evidence to require the accused to enter his defence.
He said the prosecution's evidence clearly showed that the drugs were recovered from the room occupied by the accused, while laboratory analysis confirmed the substances as cannabis.
The judge further held that the trial magistrate erred in rejecting the search witness solely on the basis that he was a neighbour, noting that there was no evidence of bias, hostility, or personal interest.
“The fact that the witness was a neighbour of the accused alone cannot render him independent. There was no evidence of hostility, bias, or personal interest against the accused,” part of the judgment reads.
The court also observed that the trial magistrate evaluated the evidence as though making a final determination of guilt, rather than assessing whether a prima facie case had been made, requiring the accused to defend himself.
“The evidence presented by the prosecution was neither inherently unreliable nor discredited to justify an acquittal at that stage. I therefore find that a prima facie case was established requiring the accused to enter his defence.
The trial magistrate erred in law in acquitting him at that stage,” said the judge.
“In the result, the appeal succeeds. The order of acquittal is set aside. The case is remitted to the trial court for the accused to enter his defence before a different magistrate,” he ruled.
