Man loses appeal over Sh43m lion trophies conviction

Judge Abubakar Mrisha dismissed the appeal on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, and a copy was uploaded to the court’s online system.

Judge Mrisha said the evidence presented by the prosecution was credible and sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction.

Mr Masala was arraigned in court together with two co-accused persons on three counts of economic sabotage, including possession and illegal trade in government trophies.

In the economic sabotage case, the first count alleged that on May 8, 2017, in Uzega Village in Mlele District, Katavi Region, they were found unlawfully in possession of two lion claws and 16 lion teeth valued at $19,600, equivalent to Sh43.3 million.

However, the trial court acquitted them on the second and third counts due to insufficient evidence, while Mr Masala alone was found guilty on the first count of unlawful possession of the trophies.

In the case, the prosecution called six witnesses and presented various exhibits, including the trophies themselves, while the appellant defended himself without presenting additional evidence.

After hearing both sides, the trial court convicted him and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Being dissatisfied with the decision, Mr Masala filed an appeal to the High Court raising five grounds, including claims that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, there were gaps in the chain of custody of exhibits, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear economic offences, and an independent witness was absent during the search.

Court decision

In his analysis, Judge Mrisha explained that the first ground of appeal, which claimed the charge was not proved, had no merit, stating that the evidence, particularly from the first, second, and sixth witnesses, was consistent and proved that the appellant was found in unlawful possession of the trophies.

On the issue of the chain of custody of exhibits, the court found there was a proper record showing how evidence was stored and transferred from one officer to another without interference.

Judge Mrisha stressed that the chain met legal requirements and was not broken as alleged by the appellant, adding that at the time the case was heard, a certificate of consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions was available and had been approved before commencement of the trial, thereby dismissing that argument.

On the complaint regarding the absence of an independent witness during the search, the court acknowledged that it would have been preferable for such a witness to be present, but noted that the circumstances, as the incident occurred in a forest, made it difficult to secure one.

The court also stated that the appellant’s signature on the arrest certificate confirmed he was apprehended with the trophies.

On the final ground, which claimed that the trial court failed to consider the appellant’s defence, Judge Mrisha partly agreed that some explanations were not fully considered.

However, he said, even if they had been given weight, they would not have changed the outcome of the case due to the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.

“Overall, the evidence presented by the prosecution was firm and credible enough to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt,” the judge ruled.

Based on that analysis, the High Court concluded that all five grounds of appeal lacked merit and dismissed the appeal.