Table Of Contents 

1. Offences.

. Meaning of the offences

. provisions of the law according to Penal Code [CAP. 16 R.E. 2019]

2. Elements

3. Cases
 Offences.

Going Armed in public.

according to Section 841 of the Penal Code: provide the meaning of going armed in public that;

'Any person who goes armed in public without lawful occasion in such a manner as to cause
fear/terror to any person shall be guilty of an offence and his arms may be forfeited.''

Elements 

. Armed 

. Public 

. Without Lawful Occasion 

. In A Manner That Caused Fear to Complainant

 In the case of R v. Hildebrandt2 [1964] QdR43, where it was held that where the accused sat in
an aircraft and brandished a firearm, he was going armed in public. “going” refers to the manner
of going and not to the progression with reference to the position of other people. The word
“armed” means possessing an object which is available ang capable of causing fear. It is the
manner in which the object is used that is relevant.

Armed;

The term 'Armed' is not defined in the Penal Code. 

In the case of R v Jones3 (1987). Tucker J, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, held
at page 266: 

'The expression "armed" is an ordinary English word. Normally, it will involve either
physically carrying arms, or it will involve proof that, to his knowledge, a defendant knows
that they are immediately available. In our judgment, it is not necessary to prove an intent to
use those arms if the situation should require it, though clearly if a defendant does use them,
or has used them, then that is an obvious indication that he is armed.
1
[CAP. 16 R.E 2019]
2
[1964] QdR43
3
(1987) CA Pg266
Affray.

taking part in fight in public as provided under section 874 of the Penal Code, Will be liable for
punishment not less six months imprisonment or to a fine not exceeding five hundred shillings.

Elements.

. intentionally

. uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another

. A person of reasonable firmness present at the scene and

. would fear for their safety

In the case of Israel and others v. Daud John5 CA no 20 of (2020).

In this case the district court held that the defendants were committed the offence of affray but the
defendants decided to appeal but the decision remain the same as the district court decided before.

Unlawful assembly and riot.

When there is gathering of not less than three people or more it may amount to assembly with intent to
commit an offence or to carry out some common purpose conduct themselves in such a manner to
cause person in neighborhoods reasonably to fear. This provided under section 746 of the Penal Code
[CAP.16 R.E 2019].

Elements.

. intent to disturb the public peace.

. produce danger to the peace of neighborhood.

. actually, tending to inspire courageous persons with well-grounded fear of serious breach es of public
speech.

In the case of FREEMAN AIKAEL MBOWE AND OTHERS v R7. Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2020 (Origin case
no 112 of 2018 )of the resident magistrates court of Dar-es-salaam at kisutu before Hon. T.K. Simba-
PRM). In this case the resident magistrate court held that, Freemen Aikael Mbowe and others where
guilty with several offences among of them was unlawful assembly and riot.

4
[CAP. 16 R.E 2019]
5
(2020) CA No20
6
[ CAP.16 R.E 2019]
7
(2020) Criminal Appeal No76
Also provides punishment to any person who takes part in an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence
and is liable to imprisonment for one year, under section 75 and section 76 of the Penal Code 8.

Abusive language, brawling and threatening violence.

Any person who uses obscene, abusive or insulting language to any other person in such a manner as is
likely to cause a breach of the peace or brawls creates a disturbance to cause a breach of the peace is
guilty of any offence and liable to imprisonment for one year; and

Any person who intent it intimidates or annoy any person, threatens to injure, assault, shoot at or kill
any person or to burn, destroy or damage any property or

Person intent to alarm any person discharge a firearm or commits another breach of the peace, is guilty
of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for one year and if it committed at night the offender is liable
to imprisonment for two years.

This provided under section 89(1) and 89(2) of Penal Code9 [CAP. 16 R.E 2019] creating different offences
and imposing different punishment for the respective offences.

Elements.

. The accused by words or conduct threatened to enter or damage a dwelling or other premise.

. the accused did so with intent to intimidate or annoy another person.

. discharged a loaded firearm (or did any other act likely to cause any person or damage to property).

. intent to alarm any person.

In the case of Peter nyamhanga v. Maitira Wesinge10 Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2020. In this case Mr.
Maitira Wesinge was charged in criminal case no 603 of 2019 for causing chaos and disturbance at Mr.
Peter Nyamhanga’s rented room located at Nyakato Maziwa with Musoma Municipal resulting into loss
of numerous items from the said room.

Nevertheless, according to the appellant who was the complainant in the primary court, on 15.09.2019
at night when he came back home from hospital, he found the respondent at his doorstep carrying two
padlocks and prevented him from entering into the room. He used the padlocks to lock the door leading
to Mr. Nyamhanga's room. Because of that he had to look for alternative accommodation for that night.
As for the missing items, the appellant when responding to one of the questions asked by an assessor
called Palemo, he testified that he did not see the respondent carrying the goods nor did he identify the
goods to be his. The responder's response to those allegations was a flat denial. The primary court
dismissed the case because there was no sufficient evidence that Mr. Wesinge caused any disturbance.
As the appellant was aggrieved, he filed criminal appeal no 4 of 2020 to the district court of Musoma but
that appeal was dismissed and the acquittal of the respondent in the primary court was upheld. This
8
[CAP.16 R.E 2019]
9
Ibid
10
(2020) Criminal Appeal No15
appeal is challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the district court.