Arusha. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has failed in efforts to ask the High Court to alter a three-year jail sentence against Kenes Julius Mbukwa, who was found with narcotic drugs, namely 100 grammes of bhang.
The High Court Mbeya Sub-Registry stated that the DPP established no legal basis enabling the Court to vary the possession offence for which Mr Mbukwa was convicted and convict him of another offence of drug trafficking.
This ruling was delivered on July 20, 2026, by Judge Musa Pomo in criminal appeal number 20770/2025, lodged by the DPP following the decision of Mbeya District Court in criminal case number 35413/2024.
By this ruling, the High Court dismissed the DPP's appeal, leaving the three-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court standing.
Case background
Mr Mbukwa was arrested on December 13, 2024, in the Iyanga area, Ilomba Ward, Mbeya Region, possessing narcotic drugs, namely 100 grammes of bhang.
In that case, the prosecution presented five witnesses and various exhibits, including 84 bhang rolls, arrest documents, a cautioned statement, and a mobile phone.
Prosecution evidence alleged that Police and Drug Control and Enforcement Authority (DCEA) officers conducted an operation following information that Mr Mbukwa was engaged in the bhang trade.
Mr Mbukwa was arrested and searched before local leaders, where 84 bhang rolls and a mobile phone were allegedly recovered from him.
After hearing both sides' evidence, Mbeya District Court found Mr Mbukwa guilty of unlawful possession of narcotics under section 17 of the Drug Control and Enforcement Act, sentencing him to three years' imprisonment.
DPP's appeal
In that appeal, the DPP was represented by State Attorney Upendo Lyimo, whilst the respondent had no legal representation.
The DPP raised one ground: that the Magistrate erred in law by passing an improper sentence under the law, claiming the Court misdirected itself in convicting the respondent for possessing narcotics contrary to section 17 of the aforementioned law.
She argued the District Court erred in law by convicting Mr Mbukwa of drug possession instead of drug trafficking under section 15A (1)(2)(c) of that law.
On that basis, she wanted the High Court to alter the District Court's decision and convict Mr Mbukwa of drug trafficking.
Mr Mbukwa opposed the appeal, asking the High Court to uphold the District Court's sentence, arguing the evidence proved possession of bhang, not trafficking, and requesting the DPP's appeal be dismissed.
Court ruling
In its decision, the High Court stated the crux of the DPP's failure was how the appeal was presented.
The Court observed that the DPP gave notice of intention to appeal against the sentence delivered by the District Court, and the sole ground presented was that the Magistrate erred in law by issuing an improper sentence.
According to the Court, in criminal matters, there is a distinction between challenging a conviction and challenging a sentence or punishment.
Judge Pomo stated that after an accused is convicted, the court imposes punishment, and the aggrieved party may appeal against conviction, sentence, or both, and the grievance must be clearly stated in the notice of intention to appeal and within the grounds of appeal.
The Court stated the DPP did not submit a ground of appeal challenging the District Court's decision to convict Mr Mbukwa under section 17 of the aforementioned law.
He stated that instead, during submissions, the DPP asked the High Court to re-evaluate evidence and find that Mr Mbukwa should have been convicted of a different offence of drug trafficking, an argument that did not align with the ground of appeal submitted.
The Court stated that an appealing party is bound by the specified grounds of appeal and cannot easily raise fresh arguments during the hearing for convenience.
The Judge stated that if the DPP wished to challenge the District Court's decision convicting Mr Mbukwa under section 17, he ought to have clearly specified that in the notice of intention to appeal and in the grounds of appeal.
The Court also noted the DPP did not challenge the three-year sentence on grounds that it violated the penalty set by law for the offence Mr Mbukwa was found guilty of, thus seeing no reason to interfere with the District Court's sentence, which fell within the statutory range.
Considering those factors, the High Court ruled the DPP's appeal lacked merit and struck it out.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
