20171031 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1

.;., ..· . . . ~ . . _> .~:.. ~::_i• ::), .. ....... - ., .· -: . ~-: - - . '"~. . . INTHE HIGH COURTOFTANZA IA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO.15 OF 2013 · · THE REPUBLIC · VERSUS . ·. -. .•i ·,, . 1. CHACHA MWITA MATINDE @ SAMWEL MASOYA · MATO @ BARIKI @ MTOTO WA YESU ·_ 2. MLIBA CHACHA MABI . : 3. MWITA KEGORO ISAYA@ JULIUS BENEDICTO RULING • .. i •···. on~:for hearing, and the prosecution had in court f!ve witnesses; namely .D/Sgt Felix, D/Sgt Fredy, Joseph Maskini, D/CPL. . Lugano and D/CPL. . Saliboko, Ms Neema Haule learned state attorney prayed for adjournment · . ·to allow them trace from RM's court Kisutu, a Criminal Case file (No. 39 of · 0 • 0 • • • 0 ~ V > • .-·_· _·,20:t2)disposed of way back 2015. From which they could ~ow get exhibits · · . :. eqUally . ·. . . relevant to this case. That it wc;1s, a copy of. search warrant, and . . two pistols make Glock s/No FH 2358 and BERETA. Only that the Kisutu Re9istry officers disowned the fact. Like since the 1st accused appealed ·- and succeeded in year 2015, the case file (records) had not been remitted . . thereto. (Letter Ref. No. 5/DSM/KST/VOL.II/6 of 10/5/2017 (the letter) and · a copy of dispatch book (portion of) of the Resident Magistrate's Court Kisutu Criminal registry - (entry of 13/01/2015). 1 . ·-:=-..:-·· -. - - ~--------- --·--·-- . .. - .. - ...._. ___ ·-- ····· •·- - - - -. . -·,· ,;, . V -•-••·••-•-,-•·-·••~·•·-·••••· ... ·.. . ·· ... · .,:,, .- .. · ..... . . =. . . . . . .. -· Messrs Da_niel, Antipas and Robin learned counsel· With moderate .. · .. · :. : -·~---~-z~al a·nd vigor unanimously objected to lhe prayer. That in May 2017 .· wh.~n it was called ori for 1st time for hearing, the case did not take off for s_imilar reasons. That historically, the case had been dragging in court : _,·_ ·:_-sirlce 2011. Whereby the presumably innocent accused for so long had .- . . ... . . been . behind the bars. That essentially, the prosecution had no good grounds. for a.dJournment. ::, .' _<>:L:-,·~-':'·_. :.- Nevertheless, D/Sgt Felix of the DCI DSM offices (one of the Pw5 now .... ···: ·.· .. · lined . up in court) cut a long story short: That the exhibits, much import:ant~y the two pistql~ were no longer in custody of the lower court. : · ._B~t:'. . in ·their (police) custody since. For this ground, I granted them >/>(;prose_cution) extra adjournment to 30/10/2017. __ :___ ,,.:_:· ___'._~_,::Very~.unusually,. when--the--Gase was, -as- scheduled· and once again . . . . .. . . called on for hearing on the 30/10/2017, Ms. Agnes~ Mtaki learned State ~ '' .. . . ·._ ··-A~rirney this time around informed the court that the DPP wished not to- •• : ! •• • •• : . - · . ' prosecute the accused any further. She prayed under Section 91 (1) of the . Criminal Procedure Act -Cap. · 20 Cap. 2002 - (the Act) to withdraw the .. ,,..· c:harges against the accused . .. The last two learned- defence counsel according to them wouldn't · mind. Provided that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) did not, . unreasonably exercise the powers under Section 91 (1) of the Act and they therefore not-expect to see this one happening. As should they rearrests ·. and .recharge· the accused based on sa·me facts of the case (the 4yrs old 2 -,.;-~-:..,~-;-,~_,,.,-~·:,·~---~-~--:;:;•_,_~•---:§·g·--~--~:-~:;,;,,~.~----~----~--~,-~,"---~---s-~--- ·='~,..:..__~,-·,=··F-~____.:_--:---:---::-:=:-:----------- ... ---- -- . ;. ...._ .... ¾~-:~~ :: :~~---,>·:~~-·:; _~~, -~--~z-.~~-:;._~E ~~~~'.~,,:_~-~~~~~2~~. . =·· :<~:-'-- -. •·'-::~:/-·'.-.:;... ··---.-~·· ... . ;. ' . .• '-.-·· . . ... . .. .: ... . '- ....:., . ;;:._": ... : ·. ·. ·. ., .. ,. . ~. : ' -.~· - :. ,. ··.·.,, . .: __ ·_·_·· ,. ~--~ .. · · ·. · cas~} it ·would be too absuard to _their clients (accused). As the Republic all . . ::,- . ' ~- ·:.:; ·;: .: ak)~_g_h~d witnesses and evidence, but didn't make use of them. Ms. Agness Mtaki in her reply simply submitted that with the -exclusive powers that he had, the DPP if wished, wasn't precluded from ·.. '.~¢?<~f~i~ing . . ,.the powers. . ·_ · ;: ·. :.:r reserved my order. ) _am now.set to gi'v~ one .. The issue .is, in my•· • - • • • • • • • • -- • - • • • • ' - • > . · yie·w not whether ·or not the DPP had.the exclusive powers (under Section ·. .. . , -·... '~l:(1:) of the Act}. ·The powers are exercisable· at any stage yes! But the· •· ~:·: . }\. ;·.:.qbesbon; as the. learned defence counsel submitted, is_ whether, even . ·. ~:where the case was called. on· for he~fring, and witnesses were in court. · almost on their toes, the case could be withdrawn with a view 9f the DPP to ordinarily . ~ re-arresting and recharge the accused (Section 91 (1) of the . . . I think for avoidance of flimsy adjournment of cases, which, in my view were breeding grounds for case backlogs, it is long settled law that . . unless congent reasons were assigned for adjour~ment (that ones worth of ·being· accepted and recorded by any reasonable tribunal), no adjournment . of a case called on for hearing shall be lawful. In a case like one at hand, where-· ~verything ·was :c:ll_rJ}ost at their disposal,. I will answer the question ··negatively. Reasons are: - One;· The prosecution as said had five (5) witnesses in court, ·.Two;_· · Parties· were-·agreed that irrespective of the copy of search warrant and probably the two Pistols, the 1st 3 .,..__,. .. - - ... -~~-~r:s';-, .-· . ,• _,. ,· . . . ·..;1. __. .· f ;! • ~ ~: . ·1·;_.,.L -~ .. • .... accused with respect to him and against the exhibits were produced in the lower court, but successfully appealed, and no appeal was .consequently preferred by the OPP, · .• Three; Now that the 1st accused was no longer guilty, and, if at - .. · .·· '· ... •... . ~; .-·~·. : . ., .. ,.:_-. . ,• .; -( Jf:.-·. ~-· i;-·,.:/ :· .:;::-· ... __ all, there was. untouched cautioned statement of his, and .. ,· . -. .. .. ~:~ . ' ~~ ,, . .. ~ _according to the letter, the statement was not one of the·_ :I, ' ,• • :.-·]_·,_.--; ' . . . . . . ._· . ~ exhibits being sought, The five (5) public witnesses summoned and lined up in ·. . r court could not have reasonably been expected all of. - - them tender the copy of Warrant of Search (Much as the· 0/Sgt. Felix admitted they had the Pistols with them), . _Five; Even on 10/5/2017. _when the case was called on for· ..... hearing; it was, on same· grounds adjourned and the . position remains say half a year now, - Six·, . If, irrespective of presence readly in court of a good number of _witnesses the OPP was, by virtue of the powers under Section 91 (1) of the Act to be permitted to withdraw the . charges, but without restrictions_ re arrest, • ··-·, •-. - •• <> •• - -and,· on same facts of the case bring the accused back to court (whenever one felt like), abuse of the court process would not be ruled out. I will, for that reasons hold that absolute powers are actually never absolute. 4 ·. . '.. ·. . .. .. -·· : .·._ :_._ __ +.;~~~-- ·:~r·--.~: _-_. _. ·0·.*_ ~7L·~. :·_.~:_~-~~-~ ~----c__~,·;_~::~;·_--·-.-~-- . • • L -•• ,-. _,__.....,. . . _ , - • ••• - --•--•----:---- • - _:__..---~-----------··-· · .. - -~-----·· ,·-: .. ;~~-:':~:7-~~,~i~~~_;:r.~-:~{:·~~~~~~-~<-;~J"-:,,c~~" : ·:E',-=i:!e;,,,,~ 0 ; ~ - ·_ -· _ _ :~· •• _ ".. -· ·:-- .- - : ..... ~ .:;:. :,,:~ - .. · :· · •..::: ..· l don't think that in that regard the· legislature had in mind the .. -... ·· ~-- :, :< '~J1usual and unfortunate scenario. Georges, o·: ~ in his book - The · · '.:'·: ~'c,ctririe of Precedents said; •. "Kama Jamii ambayo inabadilika kwa kasi kama Jamii ya Tanzania ya. leo_,_ wanasheria na Majaji .wanataki_wa - : ' . :·-waangalie ·kwa makini, na siku zote, mwelekeo wao wa kufikia. maamuzi. Kania· watasimama tulivu wakatr jamii inakwenda mbele matokeo yasiyopendeza . yanaweza kuwa· watakuwa wameshindwa . _._··: · ... · .· kujiingiza . kat'ika mwelekeo · wa. maendeleo dhana · kuwa- msingi wa utawala wa sheria una nafasi ya lazima . katika jamii yoyote ambako usawa wa watu wote na . _ heshima --ya kibinadamu vinathaminiwa sana~.-.. " :\-·: ..... ·. :· .· ... ·. (Transl~t;d by. ·s. A. ·s;~~tt~, 0 As then ~~~) .. In his book - UHURU WA MAHAKAMA Toleo la - 2013, P. 104. Prayer by Ms. Agness Mtaki is granted. The case is as marked .. ,wlthdrawn as prayed for the DPP-. Accused discharged under Section 91 . . ' . // · (l) of tt,e Act. Provided that should the accused AS EXPECTED, be re- <arr~sted ·and-· recharged, that right be exercised y~sL. But not beyond the . ·_---~ ~,-·_ ... ~-~gbin·~:~r-irhih~i-se~sions ()f th~· ~burt (which run from 16th Octob~r - 13th :·: · : ·-.-'NoVember, 2017) to be specific. Ordered accordingly. S. M. Rumanyika JUDGE 31/10/2017 5 ~__:__•~:,_,:_,--=--::....,---•- - - - : - ,- - - - - - - - =...,, - - - - -P'• ', ••-W• • • • - .. - - ~ ·- -··---"."'"-r- . -r~~~;;:,:. . - . 1..:-. .. _:"'' ;-- -·-··· . •"'