john mgaya and 4 others vs edmund mjengwa and 6 others 1998 tzca 8 16 march 1998

i n the: coup.. Oj? \?t i ..?L ,of Tanzania^ AT PAR ES SALAAM y (CORAM: RAMADHANI, J . A . . LUBUVA, J . A . , And SAHATTA, J . A . ) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 1997 BETWEEN 1. JOHN MGAYA : 2. NAPOLIONI MWAKAiANDA j 3. TELA KURUBAI t. . . . - APPELLANTS 4. YASINI KABELEGE { 5. PHILIP0 CHINIKO [ and 1. EDMUND MJENGWA 2. LAURENT MWANG'OMBB 3. RAPHAEL SIKWITA . 4. STEPHEN NDWENYA RESPONDENTS 5. SAIDI KIMTA,. 6. MHANDO MKATASA 7. GASPAR MLWILO (A ppeal from thp R u lin g o f the High C o u rt o f Tanzania a t Mbeya) dated th e 7th day o f January, 1997 in C rim in a l /JSPe a l No. 1 2 7 :0 f 1?96 JUDSEMEIvT OF THE COURT SAMATTA. J .A . t T h is i s an a pp eal from a r u lin g o f th e High C ou rt ( M wipop»,<7^) d is m is s in g a p r e lim in a r y o b j e c t i o n r a is e d i n C rim in a l A ppeal, No. 127 o f 1996 th a t the a p p ea l wij« ln ca ra p »ta »t 1*1 lo w . In t h a t appeal., the p r e s e n t re sp o n d e n t* w h ile th e p c o M c | a p p e lla n t s were r e s p o n d e n ts . ■’ . "'.'4 .■ t, •• We can s t a t e f a i r l y b r i e f l y , H it we hope a d e q u a te ly , th e backgrou n d t o th e app eal b e f o r e u s . On June 2 8 * j 1996, th e a p p e lla n t s f i l e d an a p p l ic a t i o n b e fo r e the R e sid e n t M a g i s t r a t e ^ C o u rt a t Mbeya under S. 99.(1) and (3 ) o f the C rim in a l P roced u re A c t , 1985 p u r p o r t e d ly s e e k in g t h a t Court* s le a v e t o "commence (**• p r i v a t e p r o s e c u t io n p r o c e e d in g s " a g a in s t the r e s p o n d e n ts .. The two s u b s e c t io n s read as f o llo w s * •59. - (1 ) Any m a g istra te i n q u ir i n g i n t o o r t r y in g any c a s e may p erm it th e p r o s e — c u t io n t o b e '»c o 'iiA is t ^ - bfcfc''any p e r s o n , bu t no p e rso n o ^ h ft <th a r a -.p u b lic p r o s e c u t o r ^ i*' 1 - "Vf \^ T- * 'o r . o t h e r o f f i c e r g e n e r a lly o r s p e c i a l l y a u th o r is e d by, it he Pre s id ^ n ^ .^ * 4t h i s ^ behalf s h a l l be en‘' t l t l red t o . c o n d u c t the p r o s e c u t io n w itfcou t'stach permits sifitt* • ••■+m 3. Any p erson §fj|iduc.^ing th e .p r o s e c u t io f i’^rnay ap ’s o p erson a 11 y j &?';fey an a d v o c a t e " . The a p p l i c a t i o n was vehem ently op p osed b y the r e s p o n d e n ts Ton the* grou n d , among o t h e r s , .th at i t 'w a s m is c o n c e iv e d in law i n that' i t ■" - ' V;-: was r o t p r e c eded by i n s t i t u t i o n o f c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g s j» g a £ n a t r th en by making* untver.^si 12tj o f th e A c t* « . -com p la in t b e fo r e » ' -r'- - v ■*£^jr - >u«- . .--‘'i'i'sv-V m a g is t r a t e . The le a r n e d m a g istra te who. heard th e a p p l ic a t i o n h e ld t h a t th e a p p l ic a t i o n was com p e te n t and he g ra n ted the : a p p e lla n t s the le a v e s o u g h t. The r e s p o n d e n ts were a g g r ie V a d b y t h a t d e c i s i o n ; th ey epp saled. acj&ina t i t t o t h e High C o u r t. Op -il ; * r.' * ’*•'* ^ ” th e d a t e f i x e d f o r the h e a rin g o f the appeal, th e a p p e lla n t s ri a p o i n t in lim in e i They con ten d ed t h a t tfa&t ap p ea l was incomi . ‘ ' .. *'V' ' 'V' . «■■![£■ i K~* ' in laW or two g r o u n d s ! b eca u se th e a p p e lla n t om itjted ^ se rv e the r e s p o n d e n ts w ith a c o p y , o f -the* p r o c e e d in g s o f the cp^fef and, s e c o n d ly , no app eal l i e s a g a in s t an i n t e r l o c u t o r y order i ■ , g r a n tin g le a v e t o an a p p lic a n t to mount a p r iv a t e p r o s e cu tio n ^ f h e ; le a r n e d Judge found no m e r its in b o th g ro u n d s. On the f i W i k ' g rou n d , he,_heId t h a t th e d u ty t o s e r v e th e re sp o n d e n ts w it b ’ £ o f the p r o c e e d in g s l a y on the Co u rt t r o t op th e ap p « l l a r t 5. J".¥4 r tr ' .VC.Vto“ .. -,j** - v ■&> ■ » r^ - re q a rd t o th e socorH r p o ir , was ;o,fy,ifche o p i r i o n th a t the R e sid e n t . r X* 0 * V .. '■■' . »' " } ' M a g is tr a te ’ s-C o tir t1 s deciss'ibn was, af^pealable a t t h a t stage* v***'-' .. . i-- * •*• >'***:V1 v A ccordingly,j^fche^le^^etf^^jG A ge held t h a t th e afip€?al was com peten t ■' r \V. V ■ and proci^sded1Vo o r d e r i t b e rJ)eatd a rid (determ ined on m erits* J v-A'l'3- •* ^ ■■■-.■■ VJrtV ■It i s t h i s d e c i s i o n w jiich i s impugned in t j ^ ’i n s t a n t a p p e a l .” The ,vV ■ P e t i t i o n o f Appeal co n ta in e d f o l l o w i n g ttysee grounds, o f /a p p e a l! 1. THAT THE LEARNED- a ppellate ' 1j y tDG^‘e r r e d ~ ,, ■■■ 1 . v-'1 in law in h o ld in g th a t th e R u lin g g r a n tin g p e r m is s io n to th e a p p e lla n ts was a p p e a la b le . 2. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE ANlJ WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FIRST GROUND, the Learned A p p e lla te Judge e r r e d in law in h o ld in g t h a t C rim in a l Appeal No. 1 2 7 /9 6 w hich i d pending b e f o r e i t was p r o p e r ly b e fo r e the C o u rt aiid th a t the sa id app eal should p ro ce e d to h e a r in g “and d e te r m in a tio n or i t s I' m e r it s , when th e s a id c r im in a l appeal was n o t accom panied by the r e le v a n t o r d e r 's o u g h t to be,-ap pealed a g a in s t . 3'; THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AtJD WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the f o r e g o in g , the Learned A p p e lla te Judge e r r e d in law and in f a c t in attem p tin g’ t b determ in e Mbeya High Court, C rim in a l A ppeal No. ,^27 o f 1996 in the p r e lim in a r y o b je c t i o n s r a is e d by the a p p e l la n t s / o r i g i n a l a p p lic a n t s whijch o b j e c t i o n s r did n ot, t^ e .m erles, ,o&ftHte ^aid c r im in a l appeal*-. At the commancement o f the h e a rin g o f the a p p e a l, however,’ Mr. M/tale, c o u n s e l f o r t h e . a p p e lla n t s ,- abandoned the f i r s t and t h ir d g ro u n d s, thus l e a v i n a .o n l v th e secon d arotind o f app eal t o , be a rg u ed . •. ./4 Ml . Kvval"? su bm itted t h a t when a c r im in a l app eal i s lod g ed ■ a g a i n s t a. r u ^ g / W ^ q r ^ t n ^ ffi^ h ' c£ p £ l* "th £ a p p e ll a n t m ust e x t r a c t ' the or.-^ r.-b f ' cj?e r^>ra t)j£ .*u and annex i t to the p e t i t i o n ' ' o f a p p e a l ^ AccoreVirtg/tb,'’ ±^e .te a m e d a d v o c a te , i t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t ' ) " 'r • ' ’ r i n law f o r th e a p p e ll,g p t'!>.^H jS»ie«'the' s u b o rd in a te c o u r t 's r u lin g t o the p e t i t i o n o f a p p e a iy ^ .i'h e sh e e t anchor o f Mr. M w ale's ' •v i a "C v . s. 0 5 . 'V '■' , 9 V A - • : - -. s u b m is s io n :" is 'S . 362 ( 1,).; o f ; the C rim in a la P roced u re A c t , 1985 . - • •• * ; "• .. * '1 (h e r e in a ft s r e r r e d to, as '*1©ie -A ct)., w hich reads? t '.iV '■**' "3 6 2 . - (si-.)' E very aph&al d ila ii b e ‘ ntSde~ in £he f o r m 'o f' a p e t it ^ p r i n t w a itin g . >. p r e s e n te d by th e a p p e lla n t o r h i s *■, a d v o c a te , and ev ery such p e t i t i o n s h a li- (u n le s s the High C ou rt otV prw ise d i r e c t s ) be accom panied by a cop y o f the judgment o r o r d e r app ealed a g a in st"^ (th e under­ s c o r in g i s s u p p l ie d ) . A c c o r d in g t o Mr. Mwale, the wprd "o r d e r "; t h is p r o v is io n does n o t in c lu d e a r u l in g . T ak in g h i s argum e»t ifu fth e r, the le a rn e d a d v o ca te con ten d ed th a t in C rim in a l Appeal 127 o f .1996* lo d g e d b e f o r e the Hi§h C o u r t, i t was mandatory. t o » tfce re sp o n d e n ts t o annex t o t h e i r p e t i t i o n o f app eal a cop y o f the o r d e r e x t r a c t e d from M ^pppp.^J,.V s r u l i n g . . The le a rn e d a d v oca te fu r t h e r su bm itted t h a t the a p p l ic a t i o n o f S. 3 6 2 (1 ) o f th e A ct i s s im ila r t o the a p p l ic a t i o n o f Rule '& S (l)(h ) o f th e Tanaar>i* C o u r t o f Appeal Bulej 1979 (th e R u l e s ) . He ^ m in d ed us t h a t in.. many c a s e s - in c lu d in g F ortu n a tu s'L w a n v a n tik a Mpsha v pr» W illia m Shi 1a. C i v i l Appeal N o . ; 4 3 /9 6 (u n r e p o r te d ) - t h is C ou rt has h e ld , w h ile c o n s t r u in g tHe abovenam ed-R ule, t h a t f a i l u r e —to- e x t r a c t a d e c r e e o r o r d e r i s f at||; . IJ t o th e a p p e a l. C it in g Harnam Singh B h oaal. tr a d in g as Harnam & C o . v Jadv.^ Karsam (1S53) 20 EACA 17, the le a rn e d .advocate aihm li^a i../5 . ? .< v r th a t a p a r ty who. wishe s t o e x e r c is e h is r ig h t must s t r i c t l y com ply w ith thte p r o v is io n 's " o f th e r e l e a v n t .I g jis la t io n . .In th a t c a s e , a t p .1 8 , the C ou rt p f Ajipfea'I*'for E a s te r jv ‘A fr i c a s a id : "It i s w e ll b c ttle r f. l W “th a t a r i g h t to app eal can o n ly be faunded on a s t a t u t e -and th a t any p a rty who seek s t o a v a i l h im s e lf o f the . jrig h t must s t r i c t l y , cojnply w ith th” . cpcifJifci&nS p r e s c r ib e d , - by the s t a t u t s " . , ft^»;_Rw«yonqeza, c o u r s e ! f o r th e r e s p o n d e n ts , coun?fcej?ed;vtot'. M wale'a , ? Ir* * su b m issio n s by co n te n d in g th a t i t was s u ffic ie n t ^ ^in^otasw^f o r « *d!*y * t - i'H , o f the le a r n e d J u d g e 's truling ’ tgi accompany th e P e t i t i o n 6 f A y p e a l, R e ly in g on a p a ssa g e in the r u lin g v o f ♦iapigano, Ag. J . A . ( a s he then w a s ), in Edward M arealle v 1 . M a req lle Clan 2 . Aklie-1 ' M « r e » ll| . ■ i M isc- C i v i l A p p lic a t io n No» 1 8 9 /9 1 (u n r e p o r t e d )* a m atter w hich p a r t l y c o n ce rn e d the tru e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Rule 4 6 (3 ) o f th e R u le s , th e le a rn e d a d v o ca te in v i t e d us t o h old th a t the word " o r d e r " £l» S. 3 6 2 (1 ) o f the A ct in c lu d e s a r u l i n g . Mrs. Makuru, S e n io r S ta te A tto r n e y , who appeared b e f o r e us as am icus c u r i a e t and to whom we are g r a t e f u l f o r her a s s is t a n c e , r e fe r r e d to us th e d e f i n i t i o n o f th e word " r u l e " in O s b o r n 's C o n cise Law D ic t io n a r y , a t p . 285, and t o Edward M a r e a l le 's c a s e su p ra , and subm itted t h a t the w ords " o r d e r " and " r u l i n g " used in te r c h a n g e a S ly . The le a r n e d S e n i« r S ta te A tto r n e y i n v i t e d us t o h old th a t Rule 8 9 ( 1 ) (h ) o f th e R u le s? - r e l i e d upon by Mr, Mwale in h i s a t t r a c t i v e su b m iss io n , i s n o t r e l e v a n t t o the p o in t f o r d e te rm in a tio n in the in s t a n t app eal a s , 1 ■> a cco rd in g - t o h e r , t h a t Rule e x c l u s i v e l y de>als w ith c i v i l a p p e a ls . The subm issions; gif ^oupsol^sym m arised above c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t the p i v o t a l p o in t in t h i s ,a p p e a l i s w heth er Mwipopo, J . , was r i g h t in h o ld in g , ja^-he_rfi<t^._tha^:--C£iininfll—Appeal No. 127 o f 19 9 f - 6 : - i s com peten t i n law and ought tq be heard and d e t e r m i n e on I t * m e r its * Having l is t e n e d c a r e f u l l y to, th e com peting c o n t e n t io n * so f o r c i b l y p r e s e n te d by c o u n s e l, we are o f th e O pin ion th a t Mr. Mwale1s arguments have no m erits* W hile we a p p r e c ia te th a t in Edward M arealle* s c a s e supra Mapigano, Ag. J*Ai* was d e a lin g w ith com peten ce o r o th e r w is e o f an a p p l ic a t i o n in & c i v i l m a tte r , we r e s p e c t f u l l y ag ree w ith the le a rn e d A ctin g J u s t i c e o f Appeal t h a t , t o u se h i s own w ords: ------ — - ... in many l e g a l c o n t e x t s £ t h e / wordtt " o r d e r '’ and ''r u ilh # '* C a r ry th e £afne m eaning arrf a re m u tu a lly i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e " . We do n o t have the s l i g h t e s t doubt th a t the won* " o r d e r " in S. 3 6 2Cl) o f the A ct a l s o i n c lu d e s r u l in g and must b e so co n stru e d * There i s n o th in g in the s u b s e c t io n , in our o p i r i o n , w hich m ill.fcatep a g a in s t h o ld in g t h a t v ie w . We can see no w arrant f o r the o p in io n t h a t in o m it t in g t o s p e c i f i c a l l y use the word " r u l i n g " in the ^ s u b s e c t io n P a rlia m e n t wanted to in t r o d u c e th e cumbersome p r a c t i c e o f e x t r a c t in g o r d e r s from r u l in g s i n t o th e c r im in a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o f th e High C o u r t. The le a rn e d au th or o f Black* s Law D ic t io n a r y , 6th e d . , d e f i n e s , a t * .7 5 S , the word " o r d e r " as in c lu d in g " D i r e c t io n o f a c o u r t o r ju d ge made o r e n te r e d in w r i t i n g , arid in c lu d e d i n ar judgm ent, whiChr~determin«a some p o i n t - o r d i r e c t * ste p i n th e p r o c e e d in g s " . A p p ly in g t h a t d e f i n i t i o n t o the ftr e s e f^ c a s e , we e n t e r t a i n no d ou b t t h a t Mwipopo, J . ' s r u l in g , w hich i s • the. s u b je c tm a t t e r o f the in s t a n t a p p e a l, i s f o r th e p u rp o se s &f S . j$ 6 2 (l) o f the A c t, an o r d e r , in so f a r as i t determ in ed the is s u e o f com peten ce o r o th e r w is e o f C rim in a l Appeal No. 127 o f • I - 1996 and d i r e c t e d t h a t the appeal be heard on i t s m e r it s . We ag^ee w ith Mr. Rweyongeza and Mrs. Makuru th a t the c a s e s d e c id e d b y t h l f C o u r t r e l i e d upon by Hr. Kwalc. i n h i s -argument. -are~af—na r e le v * n p e . r- /7 ■7 i n c o n s t r u in g S. 3 6 2 (1 ) o f th e Act^ Those e ^ e s s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n c e r n e d the p r o c e s s o f a p p ea lin g t o t h i s C ou rt in c i v i l m a tte r s < The n o v e l p o in t r a is e d by Mr. Mwale in t h i s app eal may, we th in k , be exam ined from a n oth er angle* as f a r as c r im in a l a p p e a ls a g a in s t r u l in g s are co n ce rn ed *' the e s t a b lis h e d p r a c t i c e in the High C o u r t . i s fo.r the a g g r ie v e d p a r ty o r h is a d v oca te t o annex to th e p e t i t i o n o f app-eal thp r u l in g ap p ealed a g a in s t , n<?j; t o anp§^c a eop y o f an o r d e r e x t r a c t e d from the r u l i n g . No p r a c t i c e o f -e x tra fc'tin ij bidders in c r im in a l m a tters i s khoWn in t h a t c o u r t* Any s e t t l e d p r a c t i c e o f a c o u r t i s p a r t o f the law Of th e la n d } a l b e i t o f a d j e c t i v a l r a th e r than su fcsta n tiv a la w ! Sec Mayes v Mayes ^ 1 ^ 7 1 / i WiL.R* 6 7 ? , 6 8 1 ; We know o f no s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n o r r u le o f CQtnitibn law w hich r e n d e r s the e s t a b lis h e d p r a c t i c e o f the High C o u rt r^ feirred t o above i l l e g a l * The law r e c o g h i s e s , as tSbmmoh sen se does* th a t u pn eces& ary t e c h n i c a l i t i e s 111 the a d m in is t r a t io n b f c r im in a l j u s t i c e may o c c a s ib h i n j u s t i c e . We a re happy t o be a b le to cortie to the c o n c lu s io n fcAat the w ording o f S. 3 6 2 (1 ) o f the Afct d o e s n ot com pel Us t o f a u l t the d e c i s i o n o f Mwipop*, J k , impugned itt t h is appeal* W hile a^m irihg the ih g e h u ity o f Mr. Mwale’ s su b m iss io n s , Ve a re u h a b ie j f o r the re a so n s we have g iv e n , to g iv e cou n ten an ce to thertu We a c c o r d i n g l y d is m is s the a p p e a l. DATED AT DAR ES SALAAM THIS 16th DAY OP MARCH, 1998. A. S .L . RAMADHANI JUSTICE OF APPEAL D-Z. LUBUVA JUSTICE OF APPEAL B»A. SAMATTA JUSTICE OF APPEAL I c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s i s a tru e c o p y o f th e o r i g i n a l . % i ( A.G. W a RIJA ) DEPUTY REGISTRAR