20151201 TZHC Dar es Salaam

_J -·---:...-:-=-· ----=~·--'-........ - - - - -· -· ~--~- -~----- -._ .. - - ~ · · · ___ 1N-THE-Rffi_tH_C_O_U_R_T OF TAN ZAN IA --------=-- - ~-=~-:;J\:f--9AR-e=s~s"AtAA"M~ "- ~---- ··- -_-_ ·-- - . - --- ~~ . ·--·- - --- - - -- . ~-- ~ -. . ~ - - - - - . . ~ ! . . . * } ?- - -- - .. ,, ___!IUZ....'... - .. -• - _ _-- . --- - -· - . .• - - -~-------- .~-...;;;:-;...._,..z=- - - --- - - .._- .-.- THED..J H££cT=.(lR:::.OF=~lJBl=l:C-:P ROSE CUT ION 5-(D R,B,)_,.,..,.~.-=-;--AR:P=,LLCANI_-_ - ----· VERSUS ··-- HUMPREY MGAMA-=MHANA AND ANOTHER ......... RESPONDENT.:--=_ ··--·- --- RULING --·--- 2/10/2015 Hon. Kitusi J. -------- --· - - The applicants HUMPREY MGAMA -·- --· MHANA and NELSON ANDENDEKISYE @ NGAJJ.LO were jointly charged at llala district court with three counts of Malicious Damage to property c/s 326 (1) of the - -----~==re~nal code. The facts_.-cQ°nstituting-tt:l-e-nffence alleged that- tn"'E--:-· _ applicants had .de_mo_lis-hed three fences, demolition of each fen0e 1 -- - - ____ . ., ___ - . .:...---c-:-- ----.;:;• ------- · · • - - - - - - ~ - . . . ____,. . ,. . -- -- ~· ~ - . , . . . - - . ~ __ - - - -:,:::::--:- ... - ~ -... _ -··-=----=- .·.-.:- - "'-"- ~ -~~~--~- .... - ~ ·- --. -- - - - ~_ ._-_-------~-=~- ·- forming -a-separate counf-~·A'd that the fences belor-ig~d~o Hemed ·~..;· ." ·.·~- ~ --= ~ - - Mfina nga, Evarest Kasim-ba7 anffllonoris Mwashubira respectively.--···-~.-·---··-- -""'==·-------..: - -==-- - .. ~br:t 25/11/2014 the ·cgar:g-e--i=W:a.s-strucR o~~· and the accused per.:?1'n:~ ~~ - - ..~_ere_ aJs.cbargea, tlYe C·G~::'.b~ving_M_a-:-@..:!Ji~ p_artjIT_gn a ·prelim·iftar~·~--~ ~ .. -~ ~--'---=-·'..c~--=-- ·--.,,.~- -··.···~-::_·-•--._. - -==----=--·--~< _---- ·~ :_~--: ~~".:..__::__:.__-. ···-- ::.· ·- -- - --=J:):O·i-nt--:r:ajs:..e_d-15y Mr. L.uguw_a~gar.ned-Goun_s@l-f.o.r-tbe-a.ccus·ed persol')s'--=-' _______ _ ~ • _ •.-:_ ---=-•• --~-~~=--.•~• ~~.:-.~- ~ •• - •• - -• --- -IV-~-~--=•, -~--~- -·-=-pr-e{e:1Teci-prematur:~ty.-beea-use there -was.a-:::~ivJJ.=cfiS:jiute that-::~~~-=:-a.ed-- . ----·· . ----·----- -:-..:-.:=-;LhaLdeci:sion ·aggr:teve-d~tle Directoc-0.f__ .P~i_s...:fr-osecut-i0n-w-hG~ intended to appeal to tli1s c;ourt but he did not do so within the . . statutory period. He-h-as--m·oved this court by a chamber summons- supported by an affidav-i·t of Mr. Con-stantine Kakula, a State.. .::.. Attorney, to extend the time to enable the filling of the intended appeal out of the time. ,here are intricate issues surrounding this-matter, but I will limit my scope to determining whetbeL sufficient grounds have been shown - . for thelJPF'saelay in fil1ng the int~--rrded-:a-p-p-eai,-.- - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 ----------- -. . -. ·---·· ~---==-.=--=-==-=-~.= ····- --_,- . -· .. ----=~~ -- ,_; ; . . - - - -----=---=== • . I ·-. -.-=-: - Mr. :.K-akula, Learnec!"_~?t~te Attorney who arg·u·eatne applic-~_ti~~:_ - - - -- - ~ - - & ~ ~ - - suomitte·d two intertwined grou~.9s. -· ---- Thefirst ground is:'.ffint=:tfte office orthe DPP·expressed an ·in1-et1~n~1:h~-- --~ > - ---'-----:~. . : . . _ - ~ ~ -- -==-=-- ~-=- -- ap.p.e.1-:-and-ap·plie-a~~a?Cff~ oLt6_e¾uJi_ng of-t:lie oufr but-tfle~e --- _ ~_..::...__ ==-~- - ~ . • •-•• ••• • ~-- ___ , ....•. •• ~ - •• -•- -• • ~· -• L ., • ••..., ~ - ----- -~- _w.:a~..Ltotsupplied_'"'to=tit~Jn.-- -The sec0r:tEl-i-s=1:!:lilJ~when the_.co_urt~w~s:-___ - -- -- - . - . ---· - - ---~- - -- - - - ---- - -·~=~ -- . ..._,--=---...,_ ~ . _07...-:::.::::::: -~ ~=---=---=-- . -~ - - -- - - . ~~----: -J .;.~ -=..t- ~ -·- ~al-ieg·ed-of-fen ce-(·c0·m13fa+Rants) who-mis-taken ly-beH eved-t-h:ey=e~ti-1€1- - . .-- ·- -. . . -: -:·:-=:::'=~~=-----. -----1-fHu n d p u rs u e:-f:h e-a-pQ_ea I th e.m selv.~s.=:=-the __ said COf!l ~1-a-i n-ants _ .:_: ---cappn~aGl:tea=lhe=a~fiH:€.a:nts's {DPP's)_of~ice-,-.,up0tr=..,{ratiz~:r.rg--tkl:a=t,;f~.:...e.Y- - u • . .. - -- . • -.. • .. Mr. Luguwa learned-~dvocate for the two respondents submitt-ed --- ----rnat no copy of noti_Ge=0f intention to-a-p-p-ecrf··has been exhibit~d=-in court to prove the applicant's contention- that an expression of the intention to appeal was-made. He also submitted on the duty of thec1pplicant to account for each day, considering the_ ta.ct_ that the copy of judgment .was mad_~-- ava11able to theTI-PP as early as 211-121201.--S~ile present applitati-011 - was filed on 24/6/20iS+four months later. 3 --~-===--...c..· -· - - - - - - - -. - - - --==~== -· ··-· -- - - - - - - - = ~ ·- --==:..:==-~~==:___:_-: -- --'=--· ~ - • . I • ---=~---I-had direct~:a-_, counsel to address the.:.p:oint-whetner-tfle:::nrder.oLthe :. ~~-- -- =,,,..., -~---;;:--~- DistrTct-c-0 urt-rs·-·ap-pel la bl e -·ana -fney ctiaaffcfress-tf-iat7roint.·- -On - ---=-·-- .. -__ --•"'" - - _-..,.;_~ reflectTon tiowe.v.e_r,_ I consider· it inappropriate to resoJve~-t-b.a_J__i-s-su-e ----- -- - ----- now l~st2:@ump-4:-Ae-g-un:-- r-Willcfrflyresolve the=~s~,;v.it,het-Mer= -u,e- - -a p pl i a~-t-s~~~-e--sn own-s t1ff-i{:"ieft-t- ,rea SO~-;GCOU ~-ttqg-=fffl"==tb-e de Iay---i nr-·--··----= ---··- - - ·-- . -- ------ - ~~~~-- ~ - - - " " - " ~ ~ ~ fi Iihg--tlte=iITT~_g~d qR-pea r. - · -------..- --'--'-----=----=--=--:::;,-;;:;~= --~ ---- - - -~-;::;:.r--:=,~-~c-- - ~-- -~--=--===--~~,.___,_·_. -- - -~ -- -- -- --=-~~ -_ -----=7:::-::--== - - ~---_.-As_c.oJ:r.~~~t1;~c=submttted b.y~_JWt.=Lug.u.w.a_:..:l_e.arned _g,d~'JJ.IJ=_.=c.a=--.te for the __ -=-=--===----~ - . res_p_e_1:td:e1Jts:;=i.t is the.d_u_!y __of the-af?~ant-to-g:i-¥_e::a.o_a:c.c.ount of ec!cJ1 ___-_-_-- -- ., ----- ------d_ay oJ tb_e-delay. - ··--. - -·- -- It is not en9ugh_=toJJ1ake--a=gene.r:a.l-expfanation ____ - - - - for --~----,-~-~ ,_ -PRINTPARK_TANZANIA_LLMITED AN_D_QI.HE.8S_CJ~LL_CAS_E No. 128_of_ ·- · - - ~=' -- ----=-=--=--- --- ----:-,;; === -- 1997 (unre·p-o-rted) the court held inter alia;- ''in-o!E.!:!lor the applicant to have benefit of -secti!!JI._14 (1)✓·-J;he-applicant ougntro explain the delay -ot=e_very day that passes beyond the described period of limitat1on. I/ In this application made under section 14 of the ~aw of limitation Act [Cap 89 R.E 2002] the order being appealed against was given on 25/11/2014. -Tnere in an explaoation as to the delay between that date and 244/2015 whe~- a cQp_y_of the ruling was ma_d~~ available to" --- the office ~!~the DPP.- Although the explanation offer_ecf-"is not a very -- plausibl·e ..:.on"e, 1-wiil take judicial notice~of the end o-f-:tne year court . 4 --·---· - -----=--------- .- -~ ~ --· ••-- - - - ------ ., . - - - · -~vacation--to ·have possibly~-affected the~ope~ations of the· court and~~--- - --- -~=====~ ( ·:~,=- . ~---- -- _·: ·er:ided l}.P affecii-;g-the applicant as weH.-- thus-'-1-do accepfthat-part-- ~~ =-==-~- - --~.. - =·----·· --0-f-t-he-exp la n_ati on. ~_:_ _:;._-_ - ···-- . - J bere is .. _h.ow_ever .n9tni_ng to e><plaitf=xi:i~;de_lay_fro.m-2'4f21261:5=,to -~ ftt ·- -~4 t~~ - . . -· -" - - .- - :;. ~ -· . __ :;;-=~24/6/2015 ;--W:13:i-le-t-he~r-i m:i pfe-re_ff e~~B~-t~-a --~-- bove-~~~q~ir..es_tb.at£ac.h--=- ---~~=-_ , -__ - -: )_ - --~-r-- _:___.__ ---- - ·- -~I:.....~----_:=·_---=-::-- - ~- - , - .~~ -~- - - - - - - ·- -~·-_cla.y.~13_e account~a.fo_(,=the-appHcant'nas-r:11Jt=exµl.ained"."the_:pefioaor · ~ ~ ·- ----- -~~ ._,,;":".;-=-: _ _ _ _ ,-~-:-::::-::=:·. - --- .. - .. - -~-. --- - -~=~- -- "-·-- _ ... __ ·· -~ -.:_-=-~ism issed. ------- - - - ---===--· --- _,,.., 1/12/2015 5 --- -'---= ~