Maana ya Wizi ni nini? Nataka kujifunza kupitia Mchanga unaosafirishwa nje

[S.N.Jilala]

Ninavyojua ni kwamba; ili kitu kiwe official kuwa huu ni wizi lazima Mahakama ihakikishe yaani iprove pasipo na mashaka yoyote. Kwa mfano nikija nyumbani kwako nikachukua kitu fulani haimanishi moja kwa moja kuwa Mimi ni mwizi mpaka mahakama ionyeshe mazingira ya uizi wangu. Nikirudi katika swala la Mchanga kusafirishwa Je, ni uizi huo au Sisi ndo tunakagua kila siku na kujiridhisha pasipo na shaka kuwa ule Mchanga wanatakiwa wausafirishe?. Kama tunaibiwa hata mamlaka zetu kuziamini karibu zote ni ngumu sana. Je, ni mfumo gani tutautumia kulinda rasilimali zetu?. Je, ni kweli ACACIA wanatuibia kimabavu au wanatumia sheria na Ujinga wetu kutuibia halafu ndo tunaanza kulalamika tuuuu.

 

[chiembe]

Mkuu,kuwaelimisha ccm utajipa kazi,wao ndio walisaini mikataba na sheria,wao ndio wameshuhudia mchanga ukisafirishwa mchana kweupe pamoja na Dhahabu kwa miaka 17,
Ni haohao walikuwa wanawazomea wapinzani bungeni walipokuwa wanapinga na kukosoa tunavyoibiwa

Sasa tena ni hao hao wamejifanya kusahau kwamba ndio walisaini mikataba na sheria .... Wamegeuka na kuanzia kupongezana eti wamegundua mchanga ilikuwa unasafirishwa.....ni uzuzu tu na upunguani


Halafu wanafanya hivyo kwa kulenga migodi miwili ambayo wanajua iko karibu kufungwa baada ya Dhahabu kuisha!!

Dhahabu imeisha ndio ccm wanapata akili ya kujenga mtambo wa smelting(kuchenjua mchanga wa Dhahabu)!!!! Sasa utachenjua nini wakati migodi iko karibu kufungwa!!???

 

[Pohamba]

Kwenye Biashara ukishindwa kutetea Maslahi yako ukasaini Mkataba na katika utekelezaji wa Mkataba ukaona unalaliwa huo sio Wizi inaitwa Biashara au Uwekezaji usio na Maslahi kwa Nchi, Wizi ni mpaka pale utakapogundua wanaenda Kinyume na Mkataba

 

[Bome-e]

Inauma sana sisi kulamba 4%,nchi kama botswana walamba up to 40%!
Ccm imetufikisha pabaya sana!

 

[Pohamba]

Inauma sana sisi kulamba 4%,nchi kama botswana walamba up to 40%!
Ccm imetufikisha pabaya sana!

Hakuna hiyo ya 40% usidanganywe!

Labda uwe hujui hiyo 4 or 40% ni ya kitu gani

 

[S.M.P2503]

Katika Sheria za Uingereza ambako sisi tumetohoa sheria zetu baada ya uhuru na ambako Acacia watapeleka kesi kama inavyodaiwa humu kwenye thread mbalimbali, theft imejadiliwa kwa kirefu kama hapa chini (Theft)

The offence of theft is set out in s.1(1) Theft Act 1968 which provides that a persohn is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it. Ss 2-6 of the Theft Act 1968 provide definitions of each of the elements of theft. S. 7 sets out the maximum penalty for theft of 7 years.
The actus reus of theft is:

• Appropriation
• Property
• Belonging to another

The mens rea of theft consists of:

• Dishonesty
• Intention to permanently deprive

Actus reus of theft

Appropriation

Appropriation is defined in s.3(1) Theft Act 1968 as including any assumption of the rights of an owner. It also covers later assumption where property has been innocently acquired. For an appropriation to take place, there is no requirement that all the rights of an owner are assumed, one right is sufficient:

R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697 Case summary
An appropriation may still be present notwithstanding the consent of the owner:
Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626 Case summary

DPP v Gomez [1993] AC 442 Case summary
This creates an overlap with the offence of fraud (previously deception offences). However, an appropriation requires an action by the defendant, a deception which causes a victim to transfer money will not amount to an appropriation and therefore no liability for theft:


R v Briggs [2004] Crim LR 495 Case summary



Property



S. 4(1) Theft Act 1968 provides that property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
Money includes notes and coins - unless a person intends to give back the exact same notes and coins they have the intention to permanently deprive a person of those particular notes and coins.
R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299 Case summary


Real property refers to land and anything fixed to land eg houses and buildings however, by virtue of s.4(2) Theft Act 1968 land cannot be stolen unless:
a).D is a trustee, representative or has authorised power of attorney and deals with the property in breach of trust. Or
b). where D is not in possession of the property but appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing or causing it to be severed. Or
c).where D is a tenant and appropriates the whole or part of any fixture.
Personal property refers to property other than land.
Property includes prohibited drugs:
R v Smith [2011] EWCA 66 Case summary

Property does not include corpses:
R v Sharp 1857 Dears & Bell 160
Body parts may constitute property:
R v Kelly [1999] 2 WLR 384 Case summary




Things in action refers to a personal property right which can be legally enforced eg a patent right, a debt, a right arising under a trust, a right to overdraw an account, a cheque etc.



Intangible property is property which has no physical existence. However, it has been held that confidential information does not constitute property for the purposes of the Theft Act:



Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183 Case summary

S.4(3) Theft Act 1968 provides that a person who picks wild mushrooms, flowers, or foliage growing wild on any land will not be liable for theft unless it is for sale or reward.

S.4(4) Theft Act 1968 provides that wild creatures cannot be stolen unless they have been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another or are in the process of being reduced into possession.


Belonging to another

S.5(1) Theft Act 1968 provides that property will be regarded as belonging to any other person having possession or control of it. This can mean that a person may be liable for theft of their own property if it is deemed in the possession or control of another:



R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901 Case summary



S. 5 (3) Theft Act 1968 provides that where the property in question is given to a person with instructions to deal with it in a certain way, the ownership in the property is deemed to remain with the giver. Therefore if a person receiving the property deals with it in a way which is inconsistent with the instructions this can amount to theft. The central question is whether there was a clear obligation to deal with the property in a particular manner:



Davidge v Bennett [1984] Crim LR 297 Case summary


R v Hall [1973] 1 QB 496 Case summary


S. 5(4) provides that where a person receives property by mistake and is under an obligation to return the property a failure to restore the property will amount to theft.



A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182 Case summary

R v Shadrokh-Cigari [1988] Crim LR 465 Case summary

If the defendant is unaware of the over payment, however, there is no dishonesty:


Moynes v Cooper 1956 1 KB 439 Case summary



There must exist a legal obligation to return the money as oppose to a moral obligation:



R v Gilks [1972] 1 WLR 1341 Case summary

Abandoned property

If property is truly abandoned it has no owner and anyone who takes it will not be liable for theft. Difficulty may arise in deciding whether property is abandoned.
Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates [2010] EWHC 2358 Case summary
Lost property
Lost property is still regarded as belonging to the loser. However, where the owner can not be found by taking reasonable steps, the finder of the property has better title to the items than the owner of land on which the items are found:

Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJ QB 75 Case summary

Hannah v Peel 1KB 509 Case summary
Unless they are a trespasser:
Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142 Case summary




However, where the items are found under the surface of land, the land owner has a better title than the finder:


Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756 Case summary


Elwes v Brigg Gas Company (1886) 33 Ch D 562 Case summary


Mens rea of theft




Dishonesty


There is no statutory definition of dishonesty, although, s.2(1) Theft Act 1968 gives three instances of when a person is not to be regarded as dishonest:
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(c) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
These three exceptions are judged entirely subjectively. There is no requirement that the defendant's belief is reasonably held:
R v Holden [1991] Crim LR 478 Case summary
R v Small [1987] Crim LR 777 Case summary
S.2(2) Theft Act 1968 states that a person may be dishonest notwithstanding a willingness to pay. This is perhaps a little unhelpful in determining honesty since it does not state whether a person will be honest or not but simply 'may'.
The question of dishonesty must be left for the jury to decide:
R v Feely (1973) QB 530 Case summary
In situations not covered by s.2, where the defendant claims that he is not dishonest, the Ghosh test applies:



R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110 Case summary


Intention to permanently deprive


Under S.6 (1) Theft Act 1968 a person is treated as having the necessary intention if they treat the property as their own regardless of the owners rights. This covers situations where the defendant intends to return the property to its owner eg the stealing of a store gift voucher and using it in the store to pay for goods. The operation of this provision can be seen in:



R v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297 Case summary



R v Marshall [1998] 2 Cr App R 282 Case summary


S.6(1) also covers borrowing in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking. The courts have taken a strict line on what amounts to being equivalent to an outright taking:


R v Lloyd, Bhuee & Ali [1985] QB 829 Case summary

 

[Bome-e]

Hakuna hiyo ya 40% usidanganywe!

Labda uwe hujui hiyo 4 or 40% ni ya kitu gani

Unazingua,huo ni mrahaba!Sasa huelewi nini

 

[S.N.Jilala]

S

Katika Sheria za Uingereza ambako sisi tumetohoa sheria zetu baada ya uhuru na ambako Acacia watapeleka kesi kama inavyodaiwa humu kwenye thread mbalimbali, theft imejadiliwa kwa kirefu kama hapa chini (Theft)

The offence of theft is set out in s.1(1) Theft Act 1968 which provides that a persohn is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it. Ss 2-6 of the Theft Act 1968 provide definitions of each of the elements of theft. S. 7 sets out the maximum penalty for theft of 7 years.
The actus reus of theft is:

• Appropriation
• Property
• Belonging to another

The mens rea of theft consists of:

• Dishonesty
• Intention to permanently deprive

Actus reus of theft

Appropriation

Appropriation is defined in s.3(1) Theft Act 1968 as including any assumption of the rights of an owner. It also covers later assumption where property has been innocently acquired. For an appropriation to take place, there is no requirement that all the rights of an owner are assumed, one right is sufficient:

R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697 Case summary
An appropriation may still be present notwithstanding the consent of the owner:
Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626 Case summary

DPP v Gomez [1993] AC 442 Case summary
This creates an overlap with the offence of fraud (previously deception offences). However, an appropriation requires an action by the defendant, a deception which causes a victim to transfer money will not amount to an appropriation and therefore no liability for theft:


R v Briggs [2004] Crim LR 495 Case summary



Property



S. 4(1) Theft Act 1968 provides that property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
Money includes notes and coins - unless a person intends to give back the exact same notes and coins they have the intention to permanently deprive a person of those particular notes and coins.
R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299 Case summary


Real property refers to land and anything fixed to land eg houses and buildings however, by virtue of s.4(2) Theft Act 1968 land cannot be stolen unless:
a).D is a trustee, representative or has authorised power of attorney and deals with the property in breach of trust. Or
b). where D is not in possession of the property but appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing or causing it to be severed. Or
c).where D is a tenant and appropriates the whole or part of any fixture.
Personal property refers to property other than land.
Property includes prohibited drugs:
R v Smith [2011] EWCA 66 Case summary

Property does not include corpses:
R v Sharp 1857 Dears & Bell 160
Body parts may constitute property:
R v Kelly [1999] 2 WLR 384 Case summary




Things in action refers to a personal property right which can be legally enforced eg a patent right, a debt, a right arising under a trust, a right to overdraw an account, a cheque etc.



Intangible property is property which has no physical existence. However, it has been held that confidential information does not constitute property for the purposes of the Theft Act:



Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183 Case summary

S.4(3) Theft Act 1968 provides that a person who picks wild mushrooms, flowers, or foliage growing wild on any land will not be liable for theft unless it is for sale or reward.

S.4(4) Theft Act 1968 provides that wild creatures cannot be stolen unless they have been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another or are in the process of being reduced into possession.


Belonging to another

S.5(1) Theft Act 1968 provides that property will be regarded as belonging to any other person having possession or control of it. This can mean that a person may be liable for theft of their own property if it is deemed in the possession or control of another:



R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901 Case summary



S. 5 (3) Theft Act 1968 provides that where the property in question is given to a person with instructions to deal with it in a certain way, the ownership in the property is deemed to remain with the giver. Therefore if a person receiving the property deals with it in a way which is inconsistent with the instructions this can amount to theft. The central question is whether there was a clear obligation to deal with the property in a particular manner:



Davidge v Bennett [1984] Crim LR 297 Case summary


R v Hall [1973] 1 QB 496 Case summary


S. 5(4) provides that where a person receives property by mistake and is under an obligation to return the property a failure to restore the property will amount to theft.



A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182 Case summary

R v Shadrokh-Cigari [1988] Crim LR 465 Case summary

If the defendant is unaware of the over payment, however, there is no dishonesty:


Moynes v Cooper 1956 1 KB 439 Case summary



There must exist a legal obligation to return the money as oppose to a moral obligation:



R v Gilks [1972] 1 WLR 1341 Case summary

Abandoned property

If property is truly abandoned it has no owner and anyone who takes it will not be liable for theft. Difficulty may arise in deciding whether property is abandoned.
Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates [2010] EWHC 2358 Case summary
Lost property
Lost property is still regarded as belonging to the loser. However, where the owner can not be found by taking reasonable steps, the finder of the property has better title to the items than the owner of land on which the items are found:

Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJ QB 75 Case summary

Hannah v Peel 1KB 509 Case summary
Unless they are a trespasser:
Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142 Case summary




However, where the items are found under the surface of land, the land owner has a better title than the finder:


Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756 Case summary


Elwes v Brigg Gas Company (1886) 33 Ch D 562 Case summary


Mens rea of theft




Dishonesty


There is no statutory definition of dishonesty, although, s.2(1) Theft Act 1968 gives three instances of when a person is not to be regarded as dishonest:
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(c) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
These three exceptions are judged entirely subjectively. There is no requirement that the defendant's belief is reasonably held:
R v Holden [1991] Crim LR 478 Case summary
R v Small [1987] Crim LR 777 Case summary
S.2(2) Theft Act 1968 states that a person may be dishonest notwithstanding a willingness to pay. This is perhaps a little unhelpful in determining honesty since it does not state whether a person will be honest or not but simply 'may'.
The question of dishonesty must be left for the jury to decide:
R v Feely (1973) QB 530 Case summary
In situations not covered by s.2, where the defendant claims that he is not dishonest, the Ghosh test applies:



R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110 Case summary


Intention to permanently deprive


Under S.6 (1) Theft Act 1968 a person is treated as having the necessary intention if they treat the property as their own regardless of the owners rights. This covers situations where the defendant intends to return the property to its owner eg the stealing of a store gift voucher and using it in the store to pay for goods. The operation of this provision can be seen in:



R v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297 Case summary



R v Marshall [1998] 2 Cr App R 282 Case summary


S.6(1) also covers borrowing in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking. The courts have taken a strict line on what amounts to being equivalent to an outright taking:


R v Lloyd, Bhuee & Ali [1985] QB 829 Case summary

Safi sana kwa maelezo hayo mazuri

 

[Pohamba]

Unazingua,huo ni mrahaba!Sasa huelewi nini

Mrahaba ni % of sales ( Revenue) sasa Kama Mrahaba huko ni 40% maana yake kwny Kila Tsh 100 ya Mauzo ( sio Faida) Mrahaba ni Tsh 40 inabaki Tshs 60 ndio watoe gharama za uzalishaji then kiasi kinachobaki wakate kodi ya Mapato ( Corporate tax) hapo kuna Faida itakayobaki?

Hakuna Sehemu yeyote kwny Biashara yoyote utakatwa Mrahaba 40% na bado uka survive kwny Biashara

 

[iparamasa]

Katika Sheria za Uingereza ambako sisi tumetohoa sheria zetu baada ya uhuru na ambako Acacia watapeleka kesi kama inavyodaiwa humu kwenye thread mbalimbali, theft imejadiliwa kwa kirefu kama hapa chini (Theft)

The offence of theft is set out in s.1(1) Theft Act 1968 which provides that a persohn is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it. Ss 2-6 of the Theft Act 1968 provide definitions of each of the elements of theft. S. 7 sets out the maximum penalty for theft of 7 years.
The actus reus of theft is:

• Appropriation
• Property
• Belonging to another

The mens rea of theft consists of:

• Dishonesty
• Intention to permanently deprive

Actus reus of theft

Appropriation

Appropriation is defined in s.3(1) Theft Act 1968 as including any assumption of the rights of an owner. It also covers later assumption where property has been innocently acquired. For an appropriation to take place, there is no requirement that all the rights of an owner are assumed, one right is sufficient:

R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697 Case summary
An appropriation may still be present notwithstanding the consent of the owner:
Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626 Case summary

DPP v Gomez [1993] AC 442 Case summary
This creates an overlap with the offence of fraud (previously deception offences). However, an appropriation requires an action by the defendant, a deception which causes a victim to transfer money will not amount to an appropriation and therefore no liability for theft:


R v Briggs [2004] Crim LR 495 Case summary



Property



S. 4(1) Theft Act 1968 provides that property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
Money includes notes and coins - unless a person intends to give back the exact same notes and coins they have the intention to permanently deprive a person of those particular notes and coins.
R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299 Case summary


Real property refers to land and anything fixed to land eg houses and buildings however, by virtue of s.4(2) Theft Act 1968 land cannot be stolen unless:
a).D is a trustee, representative or has authorised power of attorney and deals with the property in breach of trust. Or
b). where D is not in possession of the property but appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing or causing it to be severed. Or
c).where D is a tenant and appropriates the whole or part of any fixture.
Personal property refers to property other than land.
Property includes prohibited drugs:
R v Smith [2011] EWCA 66 Case summary

Property does not include corpses:
R v Sharp 1857 Dears & Bell 160
Body parts may constitute property:
R v Kelly [1999] 2 WLR 384 Case summary




Things in action refers to a personal property right which can be legally enforced eg a patent right, a debt, a right arising under a trust, a right to overdraw an account, a cheque etc.



Intangible property is property which has no physical existence. However, it has been held that confidential information does not constitute property for the purposes of the Theft Act:



Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183 Case summary

S.4(3) Theft Act 1968 provides that a person who picks wild mushrooms, flowers, or foliage growing wild on any land will not be liable for theft unless it is for sale or reward.

S.4(4) Theft Act 1968 provides that wild creatures cannot be stolen unless they have been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another or are in the process of being reduced into possession.


Belonging to another

S.5(1) Theft Act 1968 provides that property will be regarded as belonging to any other person having possession or control of it. This can mean that a person may be liable for theft of their own property if it is deemed in the possession or control of another:



R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901 Case summary



S. 5 (3) Theft Act 1968 provides that where the property in question is given to a person with instructions to deal with it in a certain way, the ownership in the property is deemed to remain with the giver. Therefore if a person receiving the property deals with it in a way which is inconsistent with the instructions this can amount to theft. The central question is whether there was a clear obligation to deal with the property in a particular manner:



Davidge v Bennett [1984] Crim LR 297 Case summary


R v Hall [1973] 1 QB 496 Case summary


S. 5(4) provides that where a person receives property by mistake and is under an obligation to return the property a failure to restore the property will amount to theft.



A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182 Case summary

R v Shadrokh-Cigari [1988] Crim LR 465 Case summary

If the defendant is unaware of the over payment, however, there is no dishonesty:


Moynes v Cooper 1956 1 KB 439 Case summary



There must exist a legal obligation to return the money as oppose to a moral obligation:



R v Gilks [1972] 1 WLR 1341 Case summary

Abandoned property

If property is truly abandoned it has no owner and anyone who takes it will not be liable for theft. Difficulty may arise in deciding whether property is abandoned.
Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates [2010] EWHC 2358 Case summary
Lost property
Lost property is still regarded as belonging to the loser. However, where the owner can not be found by taking reasonable steps, the finder of the property has better title to the items than the owner of land on which the items are found:

Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJ QB 75 Case summary

Hannah v Peel 1KB 509 Case summary
Unless they are a trespasser:
Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142 Case summary




However, where the items are found under the surface of land, the land owner has a better title than the finder:


Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756 Case summary


Elwes v Brigg Gas Company (1886) 33 Ch D 562 Case summary


Mens rea of theft




Dishonesty


There is no statutory definition of dishonesty, although, s.2(1) Theft Act 1968 gives three instances of when a person is not to be regarded as dishonest:
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(c) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
These three exceptions are judged entirely subjectively. There is no requirement that the defendant's belief is reasonably held:
R v Holden [1991] Crim LR 478 Case summary
R v Small [1987] Crim LR 777 Case summary
S.2(2) Theft Act 1968 states that a person may be dishonest notwithstanding a willingness to pay. This is perhaps a little unhelpful in determining honesty since it does not state whether a person will be honest or not but simply 'may'.
The question of dishonesty must be left for the jury to decide:
R v Feely (1973) QB 530 Case summary
In situations not covered by s.2, where the defendant claims that he is not dishonest, the Ghosh test applies:



R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110 Case summary


Intention to permanently deprive


Under S.6 (1) Theft Act 1968 a person is treated as having the necessary intention if they treat the property as their own regardless of the owners rights. This covers situations where the defendant intends to return the property to its owner eg the stealing of a store gift voucher and using it in the store to pay for goods. The operation of this provision can be seen in:



R v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297 Case summary



R v Marshall [1998] 2 Cr App R 282 Case summary


S.6(1) also covers borrowing in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking. The courts have taken a strict line on what amounts to being equivalent to an outright taking:


R v Lloyd, Bhuee & Ali [1985] QB 829 Case summary

Mkuu,hii ni elementary criminal law,fit for paralegals

 

[Lekachonka]

Mkuu,kuwaelimisha ccm utajipa kazi,wao ndio walisaini mikataba na sheria,wao ndio wameshuhudia mchanga ukisafirishwa mchana kweupe pamoja na Dhahabu kwa miaka 17,
Ni haohao walikuwa wanawazomea wapinzani bungeni walipokuwa wanapinga na kukosoa tunavyoibiwa

Yawezekana kweli wao ndo waliyosaini hiyo mikataba...hilo halitufanyi tunyamaze tu..makosa yalitendeka huko nyuma,kwasasa wanayarekebisha...huu ni ujasiri. Tuwaunge mkono.
Mara ngapi wapinzani walimsema Lowassa kwa mabaya?lkn leo hii wako naye huko? Haya anayoyafanya magufuli yanahitaji pongezi

 

[jingalao]

Ni tabia ya kawaida na pia ni haki ya msingi ya mwizi kukana shtaka!!

 

[Perfectz]

Nenda ikulu kagonge geti kisha wakifungua uliza kuhusu wizi wa mchanga

 

[Bome-e]

Mrahaba ni % of sales ( Revenue) sasa Kama Mrahaba huko ni 40% maana yake kwny Kila Tsh 100 ya Mauzo ( sio Faida) Mrahaba ni Tsh 40 inabaki Tshs 60 ndio watoe gharama za uzalishaji then kiasi kinachobaki wakate kodi ya Mapato ( Corporate tax) hapo kuna Faida itakayobaki?

Hakuna Sehemu yeyote kwny Biashara yoyote utakatwa Mrahaba 40% na bado uka survive kwny Biashara

Miss informed,nitakuelekeza hapa soon!

 

[Bome-e]

Ni tabia ya kawaida na pia ni haki ya msingi ya mwizi kukana shtaka!!

Na aliyewezesha wizi huo ni nan

 

[jogi]

Katika Sheria za Uingereza ambako sisi tumetohoa sheria zetu baada ya uhuru na ambako Acacia watapeleka kesi kama inavyodaiwa humu kwenye thread mbalimbali, theft imejadiliwa kwa kirefu kama hapa chini (Theft)

The offence of theft is set out in s.1(1) Theft Act 1968 which provides that a persohn is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it. Ss 2-6 of the Theft Act 1968 provide definitions of each of the elements of theft. S. 7 sets out the maximum penalty for theft of 7 years.
The actus reus of theft is:

• Appropriation
• Property
• Belonging to another

The mens rea of theft consists of:

• Dishonesty
• Intention to permanently deprive

Actus reus of theft

Appropriation

Appropriation is defined in s.3(1) Theft Act 1968 as including any assumption of the rights of an owner. It also covers later assumption where property has been innocently acquired. For an appropriation to take place, there is no requirement that all the rights of an owner are assumed, one right is sufficient:

R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697 Case summary
An appropriation may still be present notwithstanding the consent of the owner:
Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626 Case summary

DPP v Gomez [1993] AC 442 Case summary
This creates an overlap with the offence of fraud (previously deception offences). However, an appropriation requires an action by the defendant, a deception which causes a victim to transfer money will not amount to an appropriation and therefore no liability for theft:


R v Briggs [2004] Crim LR 495 Case summary



Property



S. 4(1) Theft Act 1968 provides that property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
Money includes notes and coins - unless a person intends to give back the exact same notes and coins they have the intention to permanently deprive a person of those particular notes and coins.
R v Velumyl [1989] Crim LR 299 Case summary


Real property refers to land and anything fixed to land eg houses and buildings however, by virtue of s.4(2) Theft Act 1968 land cannot be stolen unless:
a).D is a trustee, representative or has authorised power of attorney and deals with the property in breach of trust. Or
b). where D is not in possession of the property but appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing or causing it to be severed. Or
c).where D is a tenant and appropriates the whole or part of any fixture.
Personal property refers to property other than land.
Property includes prohibited drugs:
R v Smith [2011] EWCA 66 Case summary

Property does not include corpses:
R v Sharp 1857 Dears & Bell 160
Body parts may constitute property:
R v Kelly [1999] 2 WLR 384 Case summary




Things in action refers to a personal property right which can be legally enforced eg a patent right, a debt, a right arising under a trust, a right to overdraw an account, a cheque etc.



Intangible property is property which has no physical existence. However, it has been held that confidential information does not constitute property for the purposes of the Theft Act:



Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 183 Case summary

S.4(3) Theft Act 1968 provides that a person who picks wild mushrooms, flowers, or foliage growing wild on any land will not be liable for theft unless it is for sale or reward.

S.4(4) Theft Act 1968 provides that wild creatures cannot be stolen unless they have been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another or are in the process of being reduced into possession.


Belonging to another

S.5(1) Theft Act 1968 provides that property will be regarded as belonging to any other person having possession or control of it. This can mean that a person may be liable for theft of their own property if it is deemed in the possession or control of another:



R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901 Case summary



S. 5 (3) Theft Act 1968 provides that where the property in question is given to a person with instructions to deal with it in a certain way, the ownership in the property is deemed to remain with the giver. Therefore if a person receiving the property deals with it in a way which is inconsistent with the instructions this can amount to theft. The central question is whether there was a clear obligation to deal with the property in a particular manner:



Davidge v Bennett [1984] Crim LR 297 Case summary


R v Hall [1973] 1 QB 496 Case summary


S. 5(4) provides that where a person receives property by mistake and is under an obligation to return the property a failure to restore the property will amount to theft.



A-G Ref (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182 Case summary

R v Shadrokh-Cigari [1988] Crim LR 465 Case summary

If the defendant is unaware of the over payment, however, there is no dishonesty:


Moynes v Cooper 1956 1 KB 439 Case summary



There must exist a legal obligation to return the money as oppose to a moral obligation:



R v Gilks [1972] 1 WLR 1341 Case summary

Abandoned property

If property is truly abandoned it has no owner and anyone who takes it will not be liable for theft. Difficulty may arise in deciding whether property is abandoned.
Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates [2010] EWHC 2358 Case summary
Lost property
Lost property is still regarded as belonging to the loser. However, where the owner can not be found by taking reasonable steps, the finder of the property has better title to the items than the owner of land on which the items are found:

Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJ QB 75 Case summary

Hannah v Peel 1KB 509 Case summary
Unless they are a trespasser:
Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142 Case summary




However, where the items are found under the surface of land, the land owner has a better title than the finder:


Waverly Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 4 All ER 756 Case summary


Elwes v Brigg Gas Company (1886) 33 Ch D 562 Case summary


Mens rea of theft




Dishonesty


There is no statutory definition of dishonesty, although, s.2(1) Theft Act 1968 gives three instances of when a person is not to be regarded as dishonest:
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(c) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
These three exceptions are judged entirely subjectively. There is no requirement that the defendant's belief is reasonably held:
R v Holden [1991] Crim LR 478 Case summary
R v Small [1987] Crim LR 777 Case summary
S.2(2) Theft Act 1968 states that a person may be dishonest notwithstanding a willingness to pay. This is perhaps a little unhelpful in determining honesty since it does not state whether a person will be honest or not but simply 'may'.
The question of dishonesty must be left for the jury to decide:
R v Feely (1973) QB 530 Case summary
In situations not covered by s.2, where the defendant claims that he is not dishonest, the Ghosh test applies:



R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110 Case summary


Intention to permanently deprive


Under S.6 (1) Theft Act 1968 a person is treated as having the necessary intention if they treat the property as their own regardless of the owners rights. This covers situations where the defendant intends to return the property to its owner eg the stealing of a store gift voucher and using it in the store to pay for goods. The operation of this provision can be seen in:



R v Lavender [1994] Crim LR 297 Case summary



R v Marshall [1998] 2 Cr App R 282 Case summary


S.6(1) also covers borrowing in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking. The courts have taken a strict line on what amounts to being equivalent to an outright taking:


R v Lloyd, Bhuee & Ali [1985] QB 829 Case summary

Mkuu tunga na mtihani kabisa uone kina Wakudadavuwa watakavochemka kumtetea yule jamaa!!!