frank issack vs republic 2007 tzhc 185 7 august 2007

T H E UNITED R E P U B L IC OF TANZANIA ATSIJM BAW ANCA M ISC. C R I M I N A L A P P L I A T I O X NO. 7 O F 2006. ( O r i g i n a l Cr. C a s e No . 8 3 / 2 0 0 6 D i s t r i c t C o u r t M panel a) APPLICANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT ( Dat ed 30/7/2007 and 7/8/2007) RULING B e f o r e : H o n . A. A. INcl i i mbi . .1.: T h i s is a n a p p l i c a t i o n lor leave lo a p p e a l out ol lime. It is s up por te d b y the a f f i d av i t o f the a p p l ic a nt . Whereas the applicant appeared in person the respondent R e p u b l i c was r e p r e s e n t e d b y Mr. M a l a t a , learned S t a t e A t t o r n e y . I n p a r a g r a p h l o u r of l lie a p p l i c a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t it is s t a l e d d i a l u p o n b e i n g c o n v i c t e d b y d i e t r i al c o u r l die app licant got confused not k n o w i n g w h a t to do. l i e added before this c o ur t that the o t h e r r e a s o n ( or t h e d e l a y to file hi s a p p e a l wa s d u e to t h e f a c t t h a t he wa s not s u p p l i e d w i t h a c o p y o f j u d g m e n t in l i m e . Mr . Mala la could not stand lo concede the applicant's arguments, l i e f aul ted t h e m for the f ollowing reasons. F i r s t l y , the appellant did not file n o t i c e o( a p p e a l as r e q u i r e d by Law under s . 3 6 1 ( a ) o f t h e C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e Ac t . ( l a p . 2 0 . Fie w a s s u p p o s e d to do t h a t w i t h i n t e n d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e ol j u d g m e n t . He wondered how t h e a p p e l l a n t c o u l d h a v e b e e n c o n l u s e d l o r all t h o s e d a y s w h e n a f t e r all he w a s d u l y i n f o r m e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t of h i s r i g h t of a p p e a l . Secondly, delay lo be supplied with a copy of j u d g m e n t is not s u f f i c i e n t g r o u n d in s u p p o r t of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n b e c a u s e t h e t i m e f or wa i t i n g would h a v e been e x c l u de d. L a s t l y uo r e a s o n s l or e x I e n d i n g t i m e to file t h e a p p e a l h a v e e v e r b e e n a d v a n c e d , l i e ur g e d t h e c o u r t to f i nd t h a t t h e r e is no l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e i n t e n d e d a p p e a l to s u c c e e d . F or hi s s u b m i s s i o n s w a s t h e c a s e o f Y O N A K A P O N D A V 9 O T H E K S (1985) T L H pg.84. 2 1 I a m q u i c k to s a y I hat t h e a p p l i c a n t h a s not a s s i g n e d g o o d c a u s e f or tli e d e l a y a n d l or e x t e n d i n g t i m e to file his a p p e a l . I c o n c u r with t he l e a r n e d S t a t e A t t o r n e y t h a t confusion c ann ot amount to g o o d cause. T h e applicant had ten d a y s wi t h i n which to file n o t i c e of’ appeal. H e did not do t h a t . T h e a p p l i c a n t di d no t e x p l a i n t h e s t a t e o f c o n f u s i o n he w a s in. T h e r e is no s u g g e s t i o n t h a t he is of u n s o u n d m i n d or t h a t a t least., he w a s t e m p o r a r i l y i n s a n e . I do not even b e l i e v e t h a t he t ol d t h e p r i s o n o f f i c e r c o n c e r n e d ol hi s i n t e n t i o n to a p p e a l as lie s o u g h t to c o n v i n c e t h e c o u r t . T h a i is a h a r e a s s e r t i o n and s i mp l y an a f t e r t h ou g ht l or it is not e v e n o n e ol the grounds c o n t a i n e d i n hi s a f f i d a v i t . S i m i l a r l y , the a c c u s a t i o n t h a t the court d e l a y e d to s u p p l y h i m wi t h a c o p y ol j u d g m e n t to he a p p e a l e d I r o m is not s u b s t a n t i a t e d at all l e a v e a l o n e t h a t c o u l d h a v e b e e n t a k e n c a r e ol b y t h e r e l e v a n t l a w a n d it is not i t e m i z e d in hi s a f f i d a v i t . 3