20 year imprisonment for hunting impala
My cousin was convicted of unlawful hunting of impala. He hunted only one impala for family consumption. He was found in possession of a skin and ten kilograms of impala he hunted. Last week he was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment by the court. This sentence looks excessive to me. Can you advise me on the legality of this sentence? Is it not to harsh?
Prior to 8th July 2016, the offence of unlawful hunting or possession of any part of wildlife was punishable under the Wildlife Conservation Act, 2009 depending on the value and species of the wildlife. The Court could even impose a fine against the offender depending on the species, quantity and value of the wildlife hunted or possessed.
However, in July, 2016 the Parliament through Act No.3 of 2016 amended section 60(2) of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act by prescribing a new minimum sentence of 20 years imprisonment for all economic offences irrespective of the nature of the economic offence charged. Unlawful hunting or possession of impala meat or skin is one of the economic offences listed under paragraph 14 of the First Schedule to the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act. So the minimum sentence the Court can impose for unlawful hunting of any wildlife species including even one impala is 20 years imprisonment regardless of its value or species or number or the purpose for hunting the impala.
Hence if the crime was committed post July 2016, the sentence is legal. It is indeed quite a harsh sentence but it is unfortunately supported by the law.
Employer and trade union disagree on retrenchment package
Due to the effect of Covid-19 our business has been affected and our Company has been compelled to carry out retrenchment in order to reduce the wage bill and mitigate business losses. During consultation meetings between the management and the trade union, the trade union disagreed with the retrenchment package which our Company offered. What can the Company do?
Consultation with a trade union is not a consent seeking process. Failure of negotiation with the trade union does not bar an employer from proceeding with retrenchment. However, under section 38(2)(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, 2004 and rule 23(9) of the Employment and Labour Relations (Code of Good Practice) Rules, 2007 where a trade union or employees refer a complaint against the ongoing retrenchment process to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA), the employer is required to stop the implementation of the retrenchment until the expiration of 30 days from the date of referral of the dispute to the CMA. After expiration of 30 days, the Employer may proceed with the retrenchment unilaterally but such unilateral retrenchment may still be challenged on procedure or merits. If the trade union has not referred the dispute to the CMA, your company may proceed with the retrenchment unilaterally.
Offence partly committed in Mainland Tanzania and partly in Zanzibar
I understand that judiciary except the Court of Appeal is not a union matter. What if an offence is partly committed in Mainland Tanzania and partly in Zanzibar, can the accused be tried in a court of Tanzania Mainland?
Yes. Section 7 of the Penal Code confers the Courts of Mainland Tanzania with jurisdiction to try offences that have been partly committed in Mainland Tanzania and outside Mainland Tanzania. This section can be used to try an offence whose commission might have been organised from Zanzibar or it was partly committed in Zanzibar and partly in Mainland Tanzania.
Advertising misleading on price
There is a particular airline that sent out an e mail advert of tickets at very competitive prices but has never made them available even if you are the first person to contact them. I have reason to believe that they are trying to attract people to call them to sell seats at higher prices, which they are successfully doing. Is there no law that protects passengers who are treated like this? It is unfair for them to be misguiding the public like this. Can the airline also demand payment in advance or can I ask for credit?
This is illegal and in contravention of our laws. Under section 22 of the Fair Competition Act it is stated that (I) no person shall advertise goods or services for supply at a specified price if there are reasonable grounds, of which he is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, for believing that he will not be able to offer for supply those goods or services at that price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the nature of the market in which he carries on business and the nature of the advertisement. (2) Any person who has, in trade, advertised goods or services for supply at a specified price shall offer such goods or services for supply at that price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the nature of the market in which he carries on business and the nature of the advertisement. This is reportable with the Fair Competition Commission who can take appropriate action.
As for credit, there is no law that covers on how payment should be made. Most airlines indeed demand upfront payment which is quite standard in many parts of the world. We do not see this as being a breach of any law. What the airline cannot demand is for you to pay in USD only. A TZS option of paying, at equivalent exchange rate, must be provided for as well.