20100315 TZCA Tanga1

. - .I .. I . . .

CHARLES BARNABAS . . . .................................................. . . ', . I .

APPLICANT ,/ · . '!VERSUS I THE REPUBLIC .................... 1........................... RESPONDENT j........ 'i I (Application for Extension.of Time to file R~viewfrom the decision bf the High Court·of Tanzania at Tang a) I ~.1 I ,, . I (Munuo, J.A., MsoffeJ J.A., And Kaji4J.A.} . I dated the ;f\day of June1 200.S . • I .;: m I Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2003 ,, I ------------- I I RU',LI NG I I 12 & 15 March, 2010 I I ·']'' ...... . I I MSOFFE, J.A.: I ·I I In this application the appH6:ant is seeking eµension of tim.e to I _.:,_fni'\i!e~wHEat-ifli1--f~ew.~of~m-~s··-~'t~o~u~rt;-;s..:..:·J;:.-. ·'u--,d;,=--~~m-=-e~nt;-,--·7'"in-;C::--:ri:--m-:in-a-;-I-~- . J' - I . . . • '1 • • · - . j . -Appeal No. 145 of ,2003. Und~.r paragraph 4 CDf the affidavit in I . I support of the notice of motion th~ applicant .avers lthat he .intends to . · · . ·. i I ~- challenge the merit of the judgme~f~LWith'respect,:as aptiy observed ·' ·1 by my brother Mandia; J.A. :in:~·Miraji-. Seif v R-rpublic1 Criminal ··T- .. - .. -- Application No. 2 of 2009 (unr€pprted), the primary purpose of a • ' • I , review is not to chal.lenge the mkrits of a decisi~on.. A r€view is I 1. intended to ·address irregularities of a decision ·or proceedings which -- I have caused injustice to a party. Further to Justice MandLc/s observation, I will add two other matters by way of emphasis. One, ; a review is not

an appeal. It is not"a .second bite", so to speak. As it is, it appears the applicant intends to "appeal" against the aforesaid decision th.rough the back door.-- Our legal _syst{:m has no provision for that. T-wo 1 with the coming into for.ce on 1/2/2010 of the Tanz_ania Court of Appeal Rules1 .20091 _r.il~e 66. (1) thereof sets . i out the grounds for review. Under sub-rule {3) an application for review must be filed within sixty days from the date of the judgment . . . or the order sought to be reviewed: In this application the applicant does not indicate. :anywhere '! • . . . I that he intends to canvass any of the ·above grounds. -Admittedly, · the application was filed before the ·above Rules came into effect. Admittedly also 1 · under the ·revoked • ·-:-r .-. . Tanzania Court .of Appeal - . -. . . C ...... I ' RuJes, 1979 there was no provision for review. Hitherto; time . .· ... :·.--\~:_r:··.-:---.'·~·.: ~ - - . . limitation and grounds for review were set by· the ·cc5UrCffiYougli_...,c=a=s=€_;_•_ __ . Jaw. In_ this regard, the Court set a period of sixty days for . . . . . . . . . • . :__ .,~\__!.j. appHcations for review - $ee, for instance 1 Benson Kibaso .. -------- - ------ -·-- - -- ~ -2 .•. I I . . -- ------·· ... -1 I ii I I ---- I -. - ·Nyako~da @ Olembe Patroba Apiyo v ~?9uhlic, Criminal I Application No. 6 of 1999 (unreportr)- In simHar, ve:n, the -Court

set out grounds for review, notably dn the case of I Chandrak@nt Joshubhai Patel v The Repilblicl Criminal Appli~tion No. 8 of ' I I . 2002 {unreported). lndeedr'·the framtng ·of Rule 66 (11) (supra) is to a lame extent based on this CouJ~' decision in Jatel. In this appli:tion, the applicant does not bisdose anywhe~.e that in the .mtended - app11ca · t",on ,{:1or review. . . he 1yr.oposes to ra1~e l ' . ; any of t-11e 1 groun;s stipulated in Patel. NeedlesJ to say, Patel ~as d.ecided in. I 2003. This application was filed in 2009, which 1as after the decision in Pate I. I I Under the above paragr.,pb th€ b~ffttfl~---- - • \ I prison authorities for the ·delay. in filijg an .applicati°17 • for review within time. The allegation is unsubstantiated in that thJre is nothing'): . . - I . i from the prison-authorities to confirm it. 1 • I \ II , In fact, in my'.-reacfing a·na'.~unaerstaiiding -of .the. _ap.pJ.icatin.o_it_-____ . . \ . I ·• • •• • •••• ·,·· • •• • • • • I • I appears that the applicant is of the view that a review is automatic. r/ I With r,espect, a r,eview is not automatic._ A revfew to-thi~ Court is at· ,r I I 1· 3 .. I &-,, l ,, I I . .,,. I ' I ' . the discretioil of the Court a.rid is s~bject to the eXistence of any of the grounds set out under Ru1e 66 (~). ..I I The judgmE;nt subject of the intended review was de,liyered on 1' i 3/6/2005 .. This application. was filed on .28/7/2009. On the basis of 11 ,i ·1·'1 the material or record before. me· Iio sufficient reason has been advanced to explain the deJay. ! ..The application has no merit. If i~ .accordingly dismissed. ;j th DATED at TANGA this 13 day of March, 2010. 'I I ! 'i.j i •l! I ~s .. -·-· - .··--·---'----=---- ·, 'I ! i 4 • i I I 'i