lidya petro mbise vs republic 2018 tzhc 2232 12 september 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (ARUSHA DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT ARSHA MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION N0.35 OF 2018 LIDYA PETRO MBISE........................................................APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.................................................................RESPONDENT RULING MAIGE. J. This is an application for bail pending hearing and determination of the Criminal case No. 43 of 2018 at the Resident Magistrates Court in Arusha. The offense with which the applicant is charged is trafficking Narcotic drugs contrary to section 15 (1) (a) of the Drugs Control and Enforcement Act No. 5 of 2015. The particulars of the offence indicates that the applicant was found trafficking 43.5 kilograms of Narcotic drugs. On the date of hearing, the applicant appeared in person and was not represented. She submitted that she was entitled bail because she was given the drugs in question by her nephew without knowing that it was as such. She adopted the factual deposition in the affidavit and prayed that the application be granted. Mr. Charles Kagilwa, learned state attorney who represented the Republic, submitted, correctly in my view that, under section 29(1) (a) of the Drugs Control and Enforcement Act No. 5 of 2015 as amended by section 13 (a) (i) of the Act No. 15 of 2017, this Court is precluded from admitting into bail an accused charged with an offence of trafficking cannabis, among other drugs, where the amount involved exceeds 20 grams. My understanding of the provision just referred is that the jurisdiction of this Court to admit and accused into bail he who is charged with an offence of trafficking drugs that which is above 20 grams has been excluded. The drugs involved in the instant case being 43.5 kilograms, it is above the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. In the circumstance, the application shall not succeed. It is accordingly dismissed. The file should be remitted to the trial court of continuation of the trial. It is so ordered. Right to appeal duly explained. (Sgd) I.MAIGE JUDGE 12/ 09/2018 Delivered this 12th day of September 2018 in the presence of the applicant in person and Charles Kagilwa, learned state attorney. (Sgd) I.MAIGE JUDGE 12/ 09/2018 Date:-12/9/2018 Coram: Maige, J Applicant:- For the Applicant: Present Respondent: For the Respondent: Mr. Chalres Kagirwa, Advocate C/C:- Mariam. (Sgd) I.MAIGE JUDGE 12/ 09/2018 Court:- Ruling delivered; application dismissed. (Sgd) I.MAIGE JUDGE 12/ 09/2018 I hereby certify this to be a true copy of the original.