Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZCA

denis daniel werema vs the republic 2000 tzca 5 1 december 2000

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal did not raise any points of law as required by statute and rules, but was not incompetent; it was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed in its entirety

02

Material facts

Parties

Denis Daniel Wekema

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Feleshi

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The grounds of appeal included claims that no witness testified to the giving of a bribe and that the appellant's defence was extracted by force.
Respondent
The appeal was incompetent for lacking points of law and should be struck out under section 6(7) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 65(2) of the Court Rules.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 6(7)(a) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979

    Appeals in criminal proceedings from subordinate courts must be on matters of law, not fact, and points of law must be specified in the grounds of appeal.

  2. 02

    General appellate procedure

    An incompetent appeal is one not authorised by law or brought without complying with procedure.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal did not raise any points of law as required by statute and rules, but was not incompetent; it was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

  • appeal dismissed in its entirety

Source and reliance status

TZCA · 1 December 2000

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.

Source document

TZCA

Judgment· 1 December 2000

denis daniel werema vs the republic 2000 tzca 5 1 december 2000

IN THE COUST OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA

AT MWANZA (CORAM: KISANGA, J.A., LUBUVA, J.A., And LUGAKINGIRA, J.A.), CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 38 OF 1995

BETWEEN DENIS DANIEL WEKEMA ................... APPELLANT^ AND THE REPUBLIC . RESPONDENT (Appeal from the conviction of the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza) (Chipeta, J.) dated the 15 th July, 199 ^ in Criminal Appeal No. 38^ of 1992

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT LUGAKINGIRA, J.A. This appeal is from the decision of the High Court sitting at Mwanza which upheld the appellant's conviction on a charge of corrupt transaction and sentence of five years’ imprisonment. The appellant elected not to be present at the hearing and it seems he has completed the sentence. Mr. Feleshi who appeared for the respondent Republic submitted that the appeal was incompetent for lacking points of lav/ and prayed that it be struck out. Pie cited section 6 (7) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, No, 15 of 1979, and Rule 65 (2) of the Court Rules. We have examined the grounds of appeal carefully and agree with learned counsel that they do not raise any point of law but contain quite a lot of nonsense. This includes the claim that no witness whatsoever testified on the giving of a bribe to the appellant, the claim that the appellant's defence was extracted by force, and a lot more of such to which it is not necessary to refer.* 2 Section 6 (7) (a) of Act No. 15 of 1979 requires an appeal in criminal proceedings originating from a subordinate court to be on matters of law but not on matters of fact. The points of law are to be specified in the grounds of appeal set forth in accordance with Rule 65 (2). We are satisfied that this appeal does not satisfy these requirements but we do not agree with learned counsel that the appeal is incompetent. An incompetent appeal is one not authorised by law or, if authorised by law, one brought without complying with procedure,, This appeal suffers neither the former disability nor the latter defect, It simply has no merits and, therefore, cannot be struck out but ought to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed in its entirety. DATED at MWANZA this 1st day of December, 2000.

JUSTICE OF APPEAL

JUSTICE OF APPEAL / K.S„K. LUGAKINGIRA JUSTICE OF APPEAL, I certify that this is a true copy of the original.

SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Appellate Jurisdiction Act, No. 15 of 1979, section 6(7)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Court Rules, Rule 65(2)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.