19980814 TZCA Dar es Salaam2

IN THE COU OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: And SAMATTA,) CIMIN'AL APPEAL NO. 1. OF 1998 Between AUGUSTINÔ YATNGA MREMA . . . . . . APPELLANT A n d 1 4 T14 REPU8IC - 2s DR, MA$UMBIJkO ROMAN . . . . . . . RESPONDENTS NAHUGO LANWAI (Apeal froM the decision othe High Cthirt of Tanzania at Dar es Salaatn) (Nsekela, J.) dated the 18th day of December, 1997 in mil Application No. 37. of 1997 LING OF THE COUT M1?ALILA,J.A This is an app'ication seeking to move this Court to exercise its revisiol jurisdiction under section 4 of the Appellate Juridietioh Act -1976 as amended by the Appellate Jurisdiction (AnienmentY Act 1.993. The applicant wishes this Court to revise the proceedir.gs, ruling and order of.the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam (Nsekela, J.) in Misc. Criminal Application No. 37 of 197. This application for the exercise of i.evision1 powers of this Court was made upán the appeal of the applicant being struck out for incompetency. It appears that the applicant was wholly dissatisfied.with the outcome of his Misc4 Criminal Application in the High Court. He told this Court that he is making this application so that the Court can exercise its t-evisional jurisdiction under section 4 (2). But we thought this was an obvious slip on ZPOW 5upaes MOu st eq jeqm q96 IlTm eq 'azueçd OTIqTT e sastnjaxa u2tdd eq ;i 'ao;e.eqj, o9wvI. 4uasaid eq; IR IOU ;T uaia 1eedde ;o 4qbTa 2sl a.Laq4 'sn aO;aq MOU .a2UI aqq UI SIdZI o4 aAi4eua9qTv ue se pasn 5uaq Uotes-ns s -çq. ;o suoTstAo.1d eq4 uaAe.d o; sT uoT4Tpuoo sTq4;o esbchLnd aqj, ia2ui eq; su -ce8e 1eadde ;o qq6i ou eq ptnoqs ajaqq 4eqq Ino pauTod ATqbT. 224 TSTUnW SSTW se Sl sz49TA aSaqq UT pssa2dxe U014Tpuoo euo pue suotst3ep ;o aaqwnu 2 uç pessedxe ueq eieq (ç) uo - zes-qns japun SeMod - eUOISTAe& go esn eq; Uo 4.inoD sT44 ;O SMeTA eqI, t2 ; aqq ;o pue aq4 tun euaed eS.LeXe 04 ;ue,dde aq; PaSTAPQ eqs os 'Tev.q aq4 ;o UOTSflTUo aq4 ;e / anbesqns wq22edde sT '°u ue6 vçe - ciuio s .uDTIdde aq4 qeqm;eq; peppe eqs 4sute6e Oa- ditjdwoobuteq .Ae2w aqq 1.2uT252 Teadde ;o 4q6T4 Ou eq PhoqS aj;4LR qL0144ST SUOT4tPU03 aqq ;o OUO 4vq4 '(E) uoes-qns .Iaputt o sçbuexa M44 uo ..1flo) T4 ;o sub Step sioAaid o 5ue qU31e au papp TSTUnW ssTh 'tep eflpufl qnoqqTm PeS(2U; a2w STq4 9A24 pue janoD ( aqq ol peq o6 o; peeu 4ua6in ue St ajaqq qeqqpue '.ioop uo; aqq. Aq Pe-Leq uaeq P24 JE4M .00p eq aq4 q6noaqq 6ut.q - o4 saqs oq ueTTdde eq Aq upce -jap 2 Adwçs SQM IT 'uoteDttdde aq. ;o ezneu aejn6aa4x aqq uio-&; qaede ;eq4 paueTduio3 • uepuodsa.x puZ eqj, - uoteDtIdde siqq pasoddo fauaoq4v aeS paU.eaI TSTunW SSTw pue 'uapuodsa.l puz eq 4 T2MWI •IT4 4O5 /4 • '(c) UQTD9S -qns q4Tm ;;ei 9aojaaaT4q ee ee sn a.o;aq Teedde ou s isT T sv •1eadde U2 5UJ294 ;o esnoD at44 UT UOflD3S-qnS .iapur S9MOd asTexa A1uo U2D flO 5T4 'ed s eAnq - - • .1A • 5,• ' - ' / • • • - • 3 - - at the conci sion of the trial if the need arises. As it is now, the applicatn f'r revisibn is premature. - • We are therefore satisfied that the applicant has not made ' 1 out a case "tà 'move us to exerc&se the revisional J.uisdiction of • • - this COurt :Cirider sectior4 t3)- -*. F ii -• A$çordirIgly, we dismis this application with an orier ) • -S.-._ _ •--• • that t•he ec'ord should be teturned to the ditric-t- 6Yourt for -• the trial to proceed from where it was interrupted. The trial I . will proeèd as ordered in the ruling of Nsekela,J DATED at IDAq ES SALAAN this 14th day of ;WGUST, 1998. L.N. MF.\LILA JUSTICE O' APPEAL D.Z. LUBUVA JUSTICE OF APPEAL B.A. SAMATTA JUSTICE OF APPEAL 1 I tify that this is a tr a copy of the original. L2' • ': / , N.M. IAIKUILE •SNIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAT.