Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZCA

20110930 TZCA Arusha1

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application is incompetent because only the Full Court has jurisdiction to entertain it, not a single Justice.

Court disposition

Application struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • Application is struck out
  • Only Full Court has jurisdiction to entertain such applications

02

Material facts

Parties

Ally Mkombozi

Applicant

The Republic

Respondent Counsel: Ms. Javelin Rugaihuruza

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Review

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain an application for extension of time to file review

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant explained the delay in making the application and sought extension of time to file review.
Respondent
The respondent opposed the application on the ground that a single Justice has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Rule 62(1) of the Court Rules.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rule 62(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

    Jurisdiction to entertain applications for extension of time to file review lies with the Full Court, not a single Justice.

  2. 02

    Article 123 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania

    Article 123 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania governs the powers of a single Justice.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application is incompetent because only the Full Court has jurisdiction to entertain it, not a single Justice.

Court disposition

Application struck out as incompetent

  • Application is struck out
  • Only Full Court has jurisdiction to entertain such applications

Source and reliance status

TZCA · 30 September 2011

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZCA

Judgment· 30 September 2011

20110930 TZCA Arusha1

1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA

J AT ARUSHA CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2010 ALLY MKOMBOZI ............... ·............................................................... APPLICANT

VERSUS THE REPUBLIC .................................................................................... RESPONDENT (Application for extension of time to file review from decision of the Court of Appeal of-Tanzania at Arusha) (Kaii, J.A, Kileo,JA, And Kimaro, JA,) Dated 23 rd,24th day of April, 2004 in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2007

I RULING 27 th & 30th September, 2011 NSEKELA, J.A.: Before this Court in Criminal Application No. 4 of 2008, Ally Mkombozi v The Director of Public Prosecutions (unreported) a single Justice of this Court (Mandia,J.A) struck out an application for extension of time to file an application for Revision. The powers of a single Justice to do so are contained in Article 123 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The applicant, Ally Mkombozi, .. was dissatisfied with this decision and filed a Notice of Motion under Rule 48 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (Court Rules). In his supporting affidavit, 2 the applicant attempted to explain the course of his delay to make the application. On her part, Ms. Javelin Rugaihuruza opposed the application, basically on the ground that in terms of Rule 62(1) of the Court Rules, a single justice of this court had no jurisdiction to entertain this application I am in respectful agreement with the learned State Attorney. Criminal Application No. 4 of 2004 was heard and determined by a single Justice of this court presumably under Rule 60(1) of the Court Rules. Since the applicant was dissatisfied with the decision of Mandia, J.A., his remedy was to invoke Rule 62(1)(a) of the Court Rules. The application is to be heard by the Full Court. This is also self-evident under Article 123 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. 3 In the result, the application before me is incompetent. The Full Court has the jurisdiction to entertain it and not a single Justice of this Court. It is accordingly ordered. DATED at ARUSHA this 28 th day of September, 2011. H.R. Nsekela

JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. ~ ¼~»:--:- ,. 4 ~==-------_) ~ E.Y. MKWIZU

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

COURT OF APPEAL

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Ally Mkombozi v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Application No. 4 of 2008, unreported)

Case cited

Rule 48 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Rule 62(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Rule 60(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Article 123 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.