CRIMINAL TRESPASS

1. SAIDI ULEDI v KALESI NGONELA 1997] TLR 195 (HC)

Held: The essence of the offence under s 299(a) of the Penal Code is, firstly,
that the entry must be unlawful and, secondly, that the entry must be done with
intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in
occupation.

2. SYLIVERY NKANGAA v RAPHAEL ALBERTHO 1992] TLR 110 (HC)

Held: (ii) a charge of criminal trespass cannot succeed where the matter
involves land in dispute whose ownership has not been finally determined by a
civil suit in a court of law;
(iii) a Criminal Court is not the proper forum for determining the rights of
those claiming ownership of land. Only a Civil Court via a civil suit can determine
matters of land ownership.

3. ISMAIL BUSHAIJA v REPUBLIC 1991] TLR 100 (HC)

Held: (i) Since this case boils down to a dispute of ownership of the shamba
which is the subject matter of these criminal proceedings it seems that this is a
clear defence of bona fide claim of right;
(ii) it is wrong to convict a person for criminal trespass when ownership of
the property alleged to have been trespassed upon is clearly in dispute between
the complainant and the accused;
(iii) when in a case of criminal trespass a dispute arises as to the
ownership of the land the court should not proceed with the criminal charge and
should advise the complainant to bring a civil action to determine the question of
ownership - Saidi Juma v R [1968] H.C.D 158.

4. ALLY KAUZENI v REPUBLIC 1985] TLR 79 (HC)

Held: (i) Where the complainant was, as in the present case, not in actual
physical possession of the property no offence of criminal trespass under section
299 (a) of the Penal Code can be committed against him;
(ii) the offence of criminal trespass is committed where the trespass is in
order to the commission of an offence, or when it is to intimidate, to insult or to
annoy.

5. WILFRED MLANGA MAREALLE v REPUBLIC 1984] TLR 190 (HC)

Held: (i) An intention to annoy is the requisite mens rea for the offence of
criminal trespass;