dickson renatus vs republic 2020 tzhc 4146 17 november 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (BUKOBA DISTRICT REGISTRY)

AT BUKOBA MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2020 (Originating from the Resident Magistrates' Court of Bukoba at Bukoba in Criminal Case No. 34 of 2015 and High Court (Bukoba District Registry) in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2015 & Criminal Application No. 35 of 2019) DICKSON RENATUS----------------------------- APPLICANT Versus REPUBLIC--------- -—— ------ ----------- RESPONDENT

RULING 17/11/2020 & 17/11/2020 Mtulya, J.: The present application was preferred under section 361 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap. 20 R.E. 2019] by Mr. Dickson Renatus (the Applicant) through Chamber Summons supported by Affidavit praying for an order of this court to enlarge time period in filing notice of intention to appeal (the Notice) and petition of appeal (the Petition) against the decision of this court in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2015 (the Revision). The reasons of delay as registered in the Applicant's Affidavit and during the hearing of the appeals show that the Applicant is complaining on wrong advice from a State Attorney who was prosecuting his case and legal technicalities in his previous appeals to the Court of Appeal (the Court). However, Record of this i application displays that the Applicant had filed Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2016 before the Court protesting conviction and judgment of this court in the Revision. The wording of the order delivered by the Court on 22nd September 2017 depicts that: Pursuant to a written letter of withdrawal of this appeal lodged in sub-registry of this Court at Bukoba on 15th day of August 2017 by the appellant, this appeal be and is hereby deemed dismissed under Rule 77 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. From this order, the appeal was deemed dismissed by the Court. However, the applicant was still interested

in prosecuting his appeal and preferred to restore in the Court contending that he acted on a wrong advice or fraud emanated from the State Attorney in withdrawing his appeal in the Court. This cry is also depicted during proceedings and decision of this court in Criminal Application No. 35 of 2019, when Rumanyika, J., at page 2 of the Ruling stated: I entertain no doubts that with its decision of 25/11/2015. The trial court was done. It means therefore that through Criminal Revision 2 lis court in Criminal Application No. 35 of 2019. The Applicant neither acted on the advice nor restored the appeal in the Court. Instead, the Applicant preferred and registered the present application in this court citing section 361 (2) of the Act to move this court. There are two faults in this application and may render this application incompetent, namely: first, the applicant cited section 361 (2) which regulates enlargement of time period for appeal originated from subordinate courts other than those exercising extended jurisdiction, to this court; and second, the original decision of the District Court of Bukoba at Bukoba in Criminal Case No. 34 of 2015 was not stated in the title of the application. Again perusing the Chamber Summons filed by the Applicant, it is silent on prayers with regard to court he is intending to appeal. In any case, restoration of appeals which have already

been filed and withdrawn by the Court under Rule 77 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, find their remedies in Rule 77 (3) of the Rules. The Applicant therefore was ought to file an application before the Court praying for restoration rather than knocking the doors of this court again asking enlargement of time. 4 Considering applicant is a lay person and has been acting in wrong advices in search of substantive justice in this court and our final court of appeal for a decade now, he may still be vigilant preferring an application to the Court, of course, after consultation with Legal Aid Committee of the Tanganyika Law Society, Bukoba Chapter. Having said so, and considering this application is incompetent before this court, I have formed an opinion to strike out the application. I therefore, hereby struck out the application. The Applicant to abide with appropriate procedures regulating restoration of appeals in the Court under Rule 77 (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Ordered accordingly. 17.11.2020 5 This Ruling was delivered in chambers under the seal of this court in the presence of learned State Attorney, Mr. Joseph Mwakasege and in the presence of the Applicant, Mr. Dickson 6