20171009 TZCA Iringa

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT IRINGA (CORAM: MJASIRI, J.A., MMILLA, J.A •. And LILA,_J.A.) . . : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.· 519 OF 2015· BAHATI NDUNGURU ·@ MOSES •••••••• ~ ••••••• '~ •••••• ■-.■u~ •• ~ ••••••• ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .APPELLANT VERSUS .,·~.;- --:~ ~- ·: :· ;rt:t·E REPUBLIC 8 I ... ■■■■■•.•■■-~ ■■.-. I ■ I ■ ..... ~-.~ ■■ .... ~ I I 11••· . . . . . . . . ■ ~ a~·a ■·•· •- ■·a~~-. I~~~ Iii ■ •• RES PON DENT I 19 (Appeal from the decision of Resident Magistrate · Court of Ruvuma at Songea) . .(Dyansobera,:PRM'.) ,-:::: ,: · Dated the 13th .day of Jun.e, 201.3. . in. · . Criminal Session--No ..19 of 2012, . . .. .·.: ·'\ , •. __ , .t. • •. .' ll.JDGMENT. OF THE'COURT • 6~1 & 11th October 2017 ·: .bJLAe l.A.: . . : 1: '. ! ,,-·. · . ,t:;i :•,:' :.,. ·:.: This is. the setond attempt' by the. appeliant;-iB'ahati · Ndunguru, to :; . :· ·..·challenge the decision· 111 'RM ~riminal-session· case Nd~ 19 of 2012 which ,·,. , , ·,.:was. tried by the Principal ·Resident:Ma'gistrate .-wi'th ':Extended Juhsdict16n ._'.· :'·r <:.(W;)P. Dyansobera PRM· Ex.J):' 'That ·case fell fn tfo{ hands of thEi/'Resident . . ,:-, '.: >>/ Magistrate with Extended ·Jurisdiction following -the transfer made by the · :Judge In-charge (R.A. Teemba/J.fon 8th January, 2013 und,et: section 1 , 256A of the Criminal. Procedure, Act,, Cap 20 R.E.2002 (the CPA). The . . . . . . .. . . transfer was in respect o~ High Court Criminal Session case No. ·4 of 2012. -In that case the appellant was facing a charge. of murd_er contrary to . sectipn 196 of the Penal Code, Cc;tp 16 R.E 2002. He was _convicted as charged and was hand~d down -a sentence of death by hanging. · -~ !c-' Aggrieved, the appellant appealed . . to: ·the ·court but it was realized . . . •. :._:: .that he notice ofappeal suffered;frorh ·an incurable defect as the appellant. ...--::1 . : . . . . . ,· •. . . . : . . .. had:not indicated. the number of the ·case which he intended to appeal -, . agair~st. The appea·I -was accordin.giyf.struck out. ·. . I 1· ; -:-i ... ·-- i Still believing that the Court could do justice to hirn, and having. 'j . .·. ',,. ·. -.,fQunr himself late to lodge his notice ·_of appeal ·and appeal, the applicant ·: .. ,:. · fi_led:7Iin the High . Court . · .an. application .. ·· . •for . extension . . . of time. .That was . rnis~tllaneous Crirninill Application No. 20 of 2015. On 11/11/2015, the ._-.,·.. . ,:Hig~ Court (S.M ..Chikoyo, J.) granted the application and he was given fouJ~en (14) . days_ within whic·h:: to :fii~ his notice of appeal hence this I appe~I. . l I At the hearing of this appeal the respondent Republic had the· . . · servi ,es of Hamimu Nkoleye, _assisted by Ms. HeJlen Chuma, learned State 2 Attorneys, while Mr. Jackson Chau la, learned advocate, appeared for the · appellant who was also. present in.Court . ' . ( -It is worth mentioning· here that earlier· on the respondent Republic . . •· had· raised two points of preliminary objection, a notice of which was filed : , in-<:;ourt on 4/10/2017. The practice demanded the objection be heard . fi(s.t. ·. However, after a·short conversation with the Court, Ms-Chuma opted to withdtaw,that.notice of objection.>. l . ., ., .. :.:· :- ,- .. . Ms Chuma, did not sit back. She, instead, raised the attention of the .. ' . .: .· . : _•_, ., Court on the apparent anomaly obtaining in the· record of .appeal that while . . -. , ;:. -: :nth~ case, the decisi.on of ·which is subject of this appeal. originated from. the · :• :. ,,· 1, :-:Re~ident magistr~tes' Court where it was, tried by· a:·:Resident Magistrate··'' ,.·., . i<- : :;.:r.'-·i_th E,qended Jurisdiction,: the .application.Jar extension of time. to appeal ·.:;. •_: •-:tq the Co~rt was.- :;ought-and. granted by the. High··Court.; S~e was emphatic - . : · .. ·tha:t it was not. prop~r: in view of, the-provisions of section 11 (1) of the · . =>. _Appellate Jurisdicti~n.:Act,. Cap :141,,.R.E 2002 -:(AJA) Which requires the . ,t •· application for extension of time be sought in the court which _made the gecision subject of appeal. She was of the view that as the case was heard , • • • • • .I ~ •• • $ · .. ,·. : . . ·. . .. and determined by a Resident Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction .; ' . . 3 seating in the Resident Magistrates' Court, then the application for extension of time also ought to have beeri filed, ·h·eard and· determi~ed_by· · .. ,_. that very court .not the High Court. She ad::ordingly urged the ·court to . . ~trike out the appeal for being· time barred as the o!rder of the High Co~rt . · -granting extension of time is.-a nullity;· hence 1t is a:~fif no extensi~n: of time_, was granted. _, _:_--+ -- • _.,I. On his :Part, Mr. Chaufa, .reaoily conceded to the anomaly raised -by ~fJ.._~~·-• ,..-,;,Lo*~-,, ...._:~.-,·, l •, . .' >J . ' • • • :~:·:~i: .:M_s. Chuma. ·-7--··:sa1d. -- after- the ' Court. had . ~truck . . : . out the· appellant's appeal, : :_ :·. Jh~n the appellant was obliged to lodge his ap.plicatfon for exterision of. ·;· , ·::, ::.' tjn,e to file notice of appeal and appeal to the Court which convicted and ._, .· ; • :_ -_ . ; . ,... ,.. :Sentenced him, that is the Resident Magistrates' court where it was to be ,::: heard by a Residen,t Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction. He said by . : ·_. . .. . . ::'•: _;:~ >.':... ,_' ·:. \ -·-lodging such application in the High Court the appellant was wrong as he :.i .- . ._! cqntravened the requirements_ of...sectiQ8. 11 (1) of AJA. He painfully, urged _, .. :.· th~ Court to strike out the appeal· s6 that the appellant may comply with , law by filing his applkation -for 'extension of time before the court which convicted him. 4 ·On our, part; we fully associate ourselves with the views expressed by both the learned...?tate·Attorney and the learned ·counsel. I '' '. Before we determine the merits of this .appeal· we wish to explore the .. ' '' . -:r~sultant effect of a .case being transferred to the: Resident Magistrates' . . - · court exercising extended ·powers . . ,: As alluded to above, the Judge In-charge of the High Court at •. :· w.' ,•, \•-c'"" ·.. •!. : •.· ; ' .. .Songea exercisfng powers under.section 256A of the CPA, transferred High . ·-Court Crim.inal session case No. ·4- ·of 2012·:to· :be tried. in the Resident· "' -:: '~--·Magistrates' court presided by a · Reside.nf Magisfrt1te· with . e>,.~erided • ,' ~ o ' ~ 'f . 1• I \. • • • ~ ' ' ··.: -J~risdiction (W.P. Dyansobera, PRrvi)/As··to whafc3re· to11sequerices ofsuch. , . . ,·~"" '-~-- :: transfer,. the Court in·the ·case· ··of Elly ·MiHinga -Vs :Republ'i'c, Criminal Appeal No: 26.8 of 2014 CA (un·reported}'stated:-.:· ,,, "::•. · ·• t : ''In ·essenc~ we ·are of the opinion that · when a •.·. ·: . . . :- , . Resid,ent Magistrat~ is confe,red with. extended jurJsdiction. to entertain· a specific hearing of a case or an appeal in the High Court, his status and that . of the Court to which he has been assigned to sit does not change and make him as a Judge or sitting 5 in the High' Court, he is merely deemed to be a· · judge or deemed to sit atthe High Court. ''. ; The ·Court went on .to state that> "That is why once a formal order of transfer has been made, the· transferred , appeal · shall be registered in the court of Resident Magistrate, given · '. .I a fresh number 1 .~ . and be heard and· determined in . thkt court. Thereafter, an appealfrom that decision. of that court lies:directly to thif Court:, r i . -_ , The import· of _the above. holding is simply that when a- case - is· .. I i ·t.ran1ferred to the- Resident Magist~ates' _court:so_as. to· be,_.tried. by.·a ! . . .: ' ·.. - '. J~~si1ent Magi~trate wi_th Extend~d Jurisdiction- nothing remains· in the High •· Court. ! The hearing and determin.ation of that case is to be done in tllat I I I . cou~ and the appeal therefrom lies directly to Court ... -, I • . i. : . . ' \ ., . '. •.. ·- . . .; .·.· .. ····:!Reverting to the ..preserlt appeal, extens.ion of t'i,ne to file a notice of I . j ' . .. .· ·_ . . '' ... ' ,· ;· ·._ .-· ..·' ... ·. ,· ·,. appe~I and appeal to the _.court is governed by the provisions of section 11 (1) . of; AJA. That. section. provides: . . .- · ' 6 "11-(1) subject to sub;.section (2), the High Court or, where an 'iappeal lies· form a subordinate court exercising extended powers, the subordinate court concerned, may extend the time for givif'!g notice of intention to appeal from a judgment of the High Court or of the 1 I I II subordinate court concerned, for inaking · an i . application for leave ·to.' appeal or for a ce,tificate j I I ! that the . case· is a 'lit case···. for' appeal· '\ . notwithstanding· that -the time for'. giving the notice .. ·i I or making the· application has already expired '' ! .• i . ; .- . : . ~ '. .: .:·:> ._.i; ·.<•·. It· is 'apparent tha_t · the High Court and the Court have concurrent . 1 -i . . . jurisJiction in the .exercise of powers c~nferred under section 11(1) of AJA .. I . . · Sirnil~rly, a subordinate court exercising ext:ended··-powers has powers to ' I . . . . . . . . . , . . ~xterjd time in respect ·of a ·matter.it had tried in thaftapacity. Elaborating • I • .. ~ • I . • , . I '.>···__ on ·trle application :of se·ction ll(l) of AJA ·and·'·Rule· 47 of the Rules, the- · ~ :t . ·i . • . . . · ·• :_-:-J, · Cou1 in the case of Mkunazini· Shipping Enterprises Vs Said Kham is I • Hambd, ZNZ Civil Application No. S of 2012,·stated:-~ .·. ·, II I j 7 ''Section 11 (1) of the ·Appellate Jurisdiction. Act Cap 141 R.£ 2002 (theAct) to·i:Je read with Rule 47 of the Rules is very clear. It says where an appeal lies from a subordinate court exercising extendedpowers~ that-subordinate court and not the High Court as. contended by I . . Mr. Abdallah has powers .to extend the tir11e for the giving not· only the· notice.:·i>f appeal . . .. but also granting an application for leave tv appeal as well as to certify whether it is· a fit case to con1e .-: .·· to this Court on appeal.'' -:: , · ::•,: Given _the above· legal pos_ition-there .i?-- po ::dpubt that the-appellant _ •. ought to have had. filed his ·application- for extension,.:of time, to file the . . · notice of appeal and an appeal before the Resident Magistrates' court - · exercising extended powers not the High Court It follow? therefore that it , . . , . was improper for the High Court to entertain that application on account of . . . .. . : . . . . . . - lack of jurisdiction.-, In .the circumstances, the order by the High Court - granting extension of time was invalid. Exercising the powers of revision · conferred to this Court under s~ction 4 (2) of AJA, we hereby revise the 8 . _proceedings and o~der of the Hi_gh Court in Miscellaneous Criminal : .~ • 'I ' '• •. ' Application No. 20 of 291_5 and proceed to· nullify them. . ~ . .. - ,. ~ The usual consequences following nullification of the High Court .• t • . . . proceedings and order granting·· extension of time•· is that no order for .;_., ..: : ·.' .:. . . - . .- . .. .' . . . . . '. . ~ . . .. . . _extension ::·••·· of time existed. . The notice ·• of appeal . . . . . iri. .. the record . w.as thus filed . :' ~ ._ ' .. . • •, ... -....c i · ~-_._- put of time. As, in criminal cases; Linder Rule 68 (1). of the Rules it is the :_' ~- >; . _:· . -~. . : -' : : ·:_ .. . : . .- .' . -· .. ·.. :. :_.. ... . . . 1 .:::: .,hptice of appeal which lnstitutes an appeal, then thi~ --~ppeal automatically -_j .. ·. . . . ·:. · ;,.. . ~ i· : ' . ·. . . . . . .. . ··. : . . . . \. _ _-=; econies incompetent for want of a valid notice - _1 -... ·. "'·. of. appeal. .... ; ..... . ' - In fine, the_ appeal is incom,petent. It is. hereby stiuck out. DATED at· IRINGAthis .. '9th - day of October, 2017. . . S. MJASIRl Ju·sT1ce oi= APPEAL B.M. MMILLA JUSTICE OF"APPEAL S.A: LILA. JUSTICE OF. APPEAL: . l certify that this is a true cop of the 9r:igi_n,al. · ' E.F. f. ss1, .- DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF A\pPEAL \ 9