20060705 TZCA Tanga

It. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA ATTANGA (CORAM: MAKAME, J.A., MUNUO, J.A., And KAJI, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2004 LAMECKJOHN ] JUMA SELEMANI ] ...................... APPELLANTS VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ............................... RESPONDENT {Appeal from the conviction and sentence of the High Court of Tanzania at Tanga) {Longway, l.) dated the 1 st day of October, 2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2002 RULING OF THE COURT 20 June 2006 MUNUO, J.A.: The appellants, Lameck John and Juma Selemani, were in Pangani Primary Court Criminal Case No. 139 of 1999, convicted of robbery with violence c/ss 285 and 286 of the Penal Code, Cap 16. They were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 years. Aggrieved, the appellants unsuccessfully instituted Criminal Appeal 2 No. 12 of 2000 in the District Court of Pangani at Pangani. Thereafter, the appellants filed PC Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2002 in the High Court of Tanzania at Tanga which appeal they also lost. Longway, J. dismissed the appeal on conviction. She, however, set aside the sentence of 15 years imprisonment and substituted therewith, a sentence of 30 years imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 6 of 1996. Undaunted, the appellants lodged the present third appeal to challenge the conviction and sentence. At the hearing, the Court, suo motu, observed that the appeal originated in the primary court so it required a certificate on a point of law. Mrs. Lyimo, learned Principal State Attorney, then orally applied for leave to address us on the competency of the appeal. With the leave of the Court, she pointed out that since there is no certificate on a point of law, the appeal is incompetent so it ought to be struck out for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 6 (7) (b) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979. 3 The appellants admitted that there is no certificate on a point of law. However, they complained that they are laymen and prisoners so they are not conversant with the relevant law. They asked the Court to direct the prison authorities to assist them so that their appeal can be heard on merit. We are of the settled mind that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 6 (7) (b) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, renders the appeal incompetent. Section 6 (7) (b) provides, inter alia: Section 6 (7); Either party - (a) (b) to proceedings of a criminal nature under Head (c) of Part III of the Magistrates Court Act, 1963 [1984], may if the High Court certifies that a point of law is involved, appeal to the Court of Appeal, but where the order appealed against is a declaratory order, the determination of the Court of Appeal on it shall also have effect only as a declaratory order. 4 In this matter, the High Court did not certify that a point of law is involved. It appears the appellants were not aware of this mandatory requirement of the law. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the appeal is incompetent for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 6 (7) (b) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979. We accordingly strike out the appeal. DATED at TANGA this 5th day of July, 2006. L. M. MAKAME JUSTICE OF APPEAL E.N.MUNUO JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. N. KAJI JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original.