daudi rogetus hilary vs republic 2018 tzhc 2069 5 april 2018
- Citation
- daudi rogetus hilary vs republic 2018 tzhc 2069 5 april 2018
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 5 April 2018
- Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Application
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 5 April 2018
- Posture
- Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Application
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The offences charged are bailable and the respondent did not object to bail; therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail upon fulfillment of specified conditions.
Court disposition
Bail granted subject to conditions
Orders
- Applicant to deposit cash in court equal to half the value of the property (Tsh 5,625,000) or immovable property of not less than that value within Songea district
- Remaining half to be secured by bond
- Applicant not to leave Ruvuma region without permission from Resident Magistrate in charge of RM's Court Songea
- Applicant to attend court on every scheduled date
- Applicant to report to RCO Songea once a month on the Friday of the second week
- Applicant to produce two reliable sureties resident in Songea district, each to sign a bond of Tsh 5,000,000
- Deputy Registrar Songea to approve sureties and bail documents before release
02
Material facts
Parties
Daudi Rogetus @ Hilary
Applicant Counsel: Mr. MapundaThe Republic
Respondent Counsel: Ms Hellen ChumaAmounts and remedies
- Value of Stolen Property: TZS 11,250,000
- Cash Deposit Required for Bail: TZS 5,625,000
- Surety Bond Amount Per Surety: TZS 5,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail for the charged offences
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant, through his advocate, argued that the offences charged are bailable and requested the court to grant bail.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by the State Attorney, did not object to the grant of bail.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, Cap. 200 R.E. 2002, sections 29(4)(d), 36(1), 36(5)(a)
Bail is available for bailable offences unless there are compelling reasons to deny it.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The offences charged are bailable and the respondent did not object to bail; therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail upon fulfillment of specified conditions.
Court disposition
Bail granted subject to conditions
- Applicant to deposit cash in court equal to half the value of the property (Tsh 5,625,000) or immovable property of not less than that value within Songea district
- Remaining half to be secured by bond
- Applicant not to leave Ruvuma region without permission from Resident Magistrate in charge of RM's Court Songea
- Applicant to attend court on every scheduled date
- Applicant to report to RCO Songea once a month on the Friday of the second week
- Applicant to produce two reliable sureties resident in Songea district, each to sign a bond of Tsh 5,000,000
- Deputy Registrar Songea to approve sureties and bail documents before release
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 5 April 2018
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 5 April 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
THE CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIMES DIVISION
AT SONGEA MISC. ECONOMIC CAUSE NO. 3 OF 2018 (Originating from Songea District Court Economic Case No. 01/2018) DAUDI ROGETUS @ HILARY..........................................APPLICANT
VERSUS THE REPUBLIC............................................................ RESPONDENT
RULING MATOGOLO. J. The applicant Daudi Rogetus @ Hillary was arraigned before the District Court of Songea charged vyith three counts, namely stealing C/S 265 of the Penal code, receiving stolen or unlawfully obtained property C/S 311 of the Penal Code and occasioning loss to a specified authority. It is alleged that on 21st day of January 2018 at Bombambili. Area within Songea municipality, the applicant committed the above mentioned offences which involve telephone wire gauge 0.63 weighing 500 grams and valued at 11,250,000/= property of Tanzania Telecommunication company limited (TTCL) The applicant has come to this Court with his bail application filed under S. 29(4) (d) and S. 36 (1) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, [Cap. 200 R. E. 2002] (the Act), praying for bail. The application is supported by the applicant affidavit. In his submission in support of the application, Mr. Mapunda advocate who represent the applicant urged this court to grant to the applicant bail as the charged offence is bailable one. On her part Ms Hellen Chuma did not object to bail. I have heard Mr. Mapunda learned advocate as well as Ms Hellen Chuma learned State Attorney. I have also gone through the applicant's affidavit. The offences which the applicant is facing are bailable one. The Republic/respondent did not object bail, there is no any other reason a vailed to this court
which warranting denial of bailto the applicant. I there fore grant the application. The applicant may be released on bail upon fulfilling the following conditions; 1. The value of the involved property is Tsh 11,250,000/= which is above ten millon shillings. The applicant therefore has to deposit cash in court equal to half of that amount, that is has to deposit Tsh 5,625,000/= pursuant to section 36 (5)(a) of the Act. The remaining half is to be secured by signing a bond. Alternatively, applicant has deposit immovablG property of value not less than 5^5 ,000/= located within Songea district. This may be by depositing Title Deed of such property if registered one. For unregistered property has to furnish evidence of ownership from local authority where the property is located. The immovable property should not be incumbered.
2. The applicant shall not leave Ruvuma region withoutpermission from the Resident Magistrate in charge of RM's Court Songea.
3. The applicant shall continue to attend his case on every scheduled date 4. the applicant has to report to the RCO Songea once in a month on Friday of the second week.
5. The applicant has to produce two reliable sureties residents of Songea district who each shall sign a bond of Tsh. 5,000,000/= 6. the Deputy Registrar Songea shall approve the sureties and bail documents before the applicant is released on bail. It is so ordered. 3 05/4/2018.
COURT Ruling delivered today in the presence of the applicant, his advocate Mr. Mapunda and in the presence of Helen Chuma learned State Attorney. * ^600 4
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.