Moshi. The High Court of Tanzania in Morogoro Sub-Registry, has upheld a 30-year prison sentence imposed on Ramadhani Yahaya, alias Msabaha, who was convicted of raping a 64-year-old grandmother.
In Criminal Case No. 17597/2025, the Kilosa District Court found him guilty of two counts: rape, for which he was sentenced to 30 years in prison, and assault causing bodily harm, for which he received a two-year sentence, to run concurrently.
The ruling was delivered on Friday, May 29, 2026 by Judge Stephen Magoiga, who was presiding over Criminal Appeal No. 2346/2026 filed by Mr Yahaya.
Judge Magoiga held that the prosecution evidence was credible, consistent and corroborated by medical findings, leaving no reasonable doubt as to the appellant’s guilt.
The case
It was alleged that the offence occurred on June 17, 2025 in Mji Mwema hamlet, Kimamba Ward, Kilosa District, Morogoro Region, where Mr Yahaya raped the elderly woman.
He was also accused of assaulting her on the same date and at the same location by cutting off two fingers on her right hand using a machete.
The victim, who testified for the prosecution, told the court that Mr Yahaya threatened her with a machete, assaulted her and cut off her two fingers shortly after raping her.
She said the accused fled the scene, prompting her to scream for help. A neighbour responded and took her to the police station before she was referred to hospital, where she was examined and treated.
In his defence, Mr Yahaya claimed that while they were at a farm, the woman accidentally injured four of her fingers, after which they returned home. He further alleged that the complainant was his lover.
He told the court that they later engaged in consensual sexual intercourse at home, and that he was arrested on unrelated allegations after refusing to disclose information in a theft investigation.
The appeal
Dissatisfied with the district court’s decision, Mr Yahaya appealed on four grounds, including that the trial court relied on weak defence evidence, accepted unreliable prosecution evidence, failed to properly evaluate his defence, and that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
He also maintained that the sexual act was consensual, arguing that he and the complainant were in a romantic relationship.
The respondent (prosecution) opposed the appeal, submitting that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt and urging the High Court to dismiss it and uphold the conviction.
Court decision
Judge Magoiga said he had re-evaluated the entire record of appeal, the evidence adduced at trial, and submissions by both parties, in line with the duty of a first appellate court to independently reassess the evidence.
He found that the conviction was properly grounded on strong prosecution evidence rather than any weakness in the defence case.
The court noted that the victim gave a detailed account of being threatened with a machete, assaulted and raped.
Her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence tendered through Police Form Three (PF3).
The medical report showed bruises and redness in the genital area, consistent with forceful penetration. The examining doctor confirmed that the injuries were consistent with rape.
The court also relied on evidence from a neighbour who heard cries for help and saw the appellant fleeing the scene while carrying a machete.
Judge Magoiga held that this evidence reinforced the victim’s account and eliminated any possibility of fabrication.
On the claim of consensual intercourse, the court ruled that even where a prior relationship exists, consent must be present at the time of the act.
It further found that the injuries to the victim’s fingers were evidence of resistance, confirming absence of consent.
The judge noted that the appellant did not dispute having sexual intercourse with the victim, but insisted it was consensual. However, medical and circumstantial evidence proved otherwise.
Citing Court of Appeal precedents, Judge Magoiga reiterated that in rape cases, a complainant’s testimony can be sufficient if credible and corroborated by other evidence.
The court held that the victim’s evidence was direct, credible and supported by both medical and eyewitness testimony.
On the assault charge, the court agreed with the trial court that the injuries to the victim’s fingers were inflicted by a sharp object, consistent with a machete attack during resistance.
After evaluating all four grounds of appeal, the High Court found none had merit to overturn the conviction.
“The prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court properly evaluated both prosecution and defence evidence before reaching its decision,” the ruling stated.
The High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal in its entirety and upheld both the conviction and sentences imposed by the Kilosa District Court.
