Arusha. The Court of Appeal has sentenced Steven Lihanjala to life imprisonment after finding that lower courts erred by imposing and upholding a 30-year jail term for raping a five-year-old child.
Mr Lihanjala had appealed against a decision of the Dar es Salaam High Court, which upheld the sentence imposed by the Kibaha District Court after finding him guilty of rape.
He was accused of committing the offence several times in May 2022 at Misugusugu in Kibaha District, Coast Region, where he lived with his wife and the child, who was his stepdaughter.
The decision was delivered on Friday, August 28, 2026, by a three-judge panel comprising Justices Lugano Mwandambo, Paul Ngwembe and Rabia Mohamed.
The Court dismissed his appeal against conviction but increased the sentence after finding that both the Kibaha District Court and High Court had erred by imposing and confirming a 30-year sentence contrary to the law.
How it happened
Mr Lihanjala was charged with rape contrary to sections 130(1), 130(2)(e) and 131(3) of the Penal Code.
The victim, whose identity has been withheld, was the prosecution’s second witness.
The abuse came to light after her sister noticed that she was walking with difficulty and appeared distressed.
According to the judgment, the child initially did not disclose what had happened when questioned.
She later told her sister that her stepfather had inserted his fingers into her private parts and raped her several times.
On June 2, 2022, the child was taken to Kibaha Police Station, where she was issued with Police Form No. 3 (PF3), before undergoing a medical examination.
The examination found evidence of penetration by a blunt object.
She was also diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and a sexually transmitted infection.
In his defence, Mr Lihanjala denied the allegations, describing them as false.
After hearing evidence from both sides, the Kibaha District Court convicted him and sentenced him to 30 years in prison.
Appeal
Mr Lihanjala appealed to the High Court, challenging both his conviction and sentence.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the 30-year term.
In his second appeal, he raised three grounds, arguing that the High Court erred in law by upholding the sentence and that the prosecution had failed to provide specific dates for offences allegedly committed on different days in May 2022.
He also cited discrepancies in prosecution witnesses’ evidence and argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Judges’ decision
Justice Mohamed said that after reviewing the proceedings and submissions from both sides, the Court found that the High Court had correctly held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
On the absence of exact dates, the judges agreed with the State Attorney that identifying specific dates could be difficult where a young child is repeatedly abused over a period.
“We agree with the State Attorney that where a child of tender age is repeatedly abused over time, specifying exact dates is extremely difficult,” the Court stated.
The judges said the reference to different dates in May 2022 met legal requirements because Mr Lihanjala had sufficient information about the charge to prepare his defence.
They also dismissed a discrepancy between the PF3, which referred to syphilis, and evidence from the first and third prosecution witnesses, who mentioned gonorrhoea, saying it did not affect the substance of the case.
The Court found that the essential elements of rape had been proved, including Mr Lihanjala’s identity as the perpetrator.
The child identified him as her stepfather and described the acts, while her evidence was corroborated by another witness and medical evidence.
The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the conviction.
However, on the sentence, the judges held that the Kibaha District Court erred by imposing 30 years and that the High Court similarly erred by upholding it.
“Section 131(3) of the Penal Code explicitly mandates that anyone committing rape against a child under 10 years old shall be sentenced to life imprisonment,” the Court stated.
The judges said the Court of Appeal has a duty to ensure lower courts apply the law correctly and rectify flawed decisions.
It consequently quashed the 30-year sentence and substituted it with life imprisonment.
“This court has a duty to ensure that lower courts execute the law properly and correct flawed judgments. The 30-year prison sentence is quashed and substituted with life imprisonment as the law directs,” the judges concluded.
