19830829 TZHC Mbeya3

'eted o-ç BSp9STVII -' TJJ, sseu.m ou p op ou pnoo at Stu 'pGaootd o. osoxct oq uocTt peiio pu uofloçqo vtthi te 9 TtZL ue1JuzflOcp PSO(TdO 90 U09P Ot1. W vx'*zzz1oV1 atn; t .ioj paNsu pira seBsuqU pq atj PTUS .to1'O98QXd uO q r'Tn0M Ue iInOE 3I0tJ OU 2WL UTU1U1L qvt ifP/t u u-ç.it xoj pxtj suE osvo rt i//t uo -TasunoD 4 0ua jap eq. JQ .Qqo 7uiq uouuinoçp t1oa pu xoqn soxci otqwI et o aO1XWUT 8% ufl1xrL0p? JUtT T''°TT°J Ott{. IOfl 00u0 e0uap4 eM (wTs1a ;o A r=O TUp OT41 tuoxj) ES -,) TTq.Ttl 70T TIDOSOZIJ açj o ut& o/t/6e ttc. 4ttn0Cp3 ctrci peooj iq. qit. pezrj ouu ptm o pe sup p t.ou xo pes. .onosoxct use.zcT ta L*rEe Re x.ct jeSsuq.p. o notq. pxo .ou smi asiaQ et. ep 4 041, u tiq'uo posuatoa eaalk SI-U0PU0ds0a o eta '084/6 OJ jutgt XoJ ipix s et 3S xoq.noesoacr o -r -[qnd etfl. Ap atTne tmcx,. tqoq oq. qrr0 ou rattd o/L/t uo mfl xo noo ü.o;q pstraddu peUrqo Iu-ttm xo U@T0qq Ueeq 2utA jo Daedis exi tjot*( XWE urordrtp io s - q -al 61 pu sxthcI uoq.ia JO eepvd f a 'sxedtI uOfldnp jo sumex 9ze jo uo -çGsEisoJ ul ptmo; pagm icaq. 2to .t urtoo pttnos a u 'ouuota 5trçq.totdnp pu aTxMJ e JcT.UTOc' LL/L/ UQ '1oot1os tri..s ot.iq Jo rnoG tl'e '4UE7UoCtex paoos pu OOto JvpUooe q; Xoto. g s*. zod.zs Tj. ei. qq. poxxe st -I cqtoctoxd p oadsna jo UOT9eeo4 liT Ptrr4q pu1 2 UTS 41,TIA PasauqoxeL& U @ puods6ax wq 3U r viaxiin ocar PQ3 t1Ga jO ri'/ puqo AIsnOTuOTeJ Q uoeq a& o 4r.ectoicr jo uorssessoct uç ueg :r pti 91th opue oq. jbç9 s/o ut - oq Tq :jrj SJNOISI ''' .Cir1Tros () MOiIS (i) sflsu •• . ' ' d C ¶HII t2i .U3PTEYT ' leAi3TslAl j T OflT1SI O PIflOD jOflLTSIcr 1J o - Q6T a O 9 oavo TJJJ\fl3 TNWHO 61r6 t' oci prrTdJy rrmwio - (x;sT.I ocj1) rJTtT -- Tcoo TI5flI r4jjj NI (2)"' aruinç that the trial maçlstrate had no power to acquit the respondents without heariu evidence, As held in Konji t.Qc} 1976 H.C.D. 41, the court has discretion to allow or refuse an application for adjournment. Where an application for adjournment is refused the public prosecutor ctust, call witnaes and proceed with the case, fai1in' which the proceiu shal] be. for gooa. In other words the charge would be diieed for want of prosecution. tht such exerdise should be r6soxt-pz to very earingly. Therefore what tho r:a4strate did was not illegal. The question is whether heexercised h± discretion. udiaiai1y. xProm thQ raeord it Vpeare that the case's pendancy was nine onths to th.e day it was disraisstd. It could not be' said to have been in court for a lonS tic. The ths old- than this one. iicweve•it oust e remoorud that on the day the responden.., appeared in cnirt for th first ti;e the told thecourt that investiatiens. were completed and asked for ahoaring c1.at, There were then no saun.1 reasons why the prcsccution failed to poeed with the case till it lecanc necessary for the magistrate to not he did. On the whole 1 do not find ny justi±'icatiol:L tor intrferin with the iiaistrate's orier. The a eal.isdismissd. At Mbéy, 29th 1983 _____ . ';