19900223 TZCA Dar es Salaam18
The High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the charge was preferred after the amendment came into force, regardless of when the offence was committed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19900223 TZCA Dar es Salaam18
- Parties
- Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: B. 6945 Sgt. Athumani; Respondent: Saidi Mzee
- Court
- TZCA
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 23 February 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Retroactivity of Procedural Law, Economic and Organized Crime Control Act
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Director of Public Prosecutions
Appellant
B. 6945 Sgt. Athumani
Respondent
Saidi Mzee
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear cases under the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, 1984 where the value of the subject matter is less than one million shillings after the 1987 amendment
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the charge was preferred after the amendment came into force, regardless of when the offence was committed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
·< ·:~! ~ . COURT o::)' I APPEAL OL' S:'J'J'~-TIA · ,·.. , · AT DAR ES .GAL.A.AI-I \· ~;~;/>l, ;, ( =----=------------,.._-:--.. . ---------'-------------:-- ;.,~,;,>:~·: COR/2!, ... KI5!.l'.G!, J ,L , ,:G,"TJil!I J ,A. C1UEI:.~.:'':J, APP:.:;,{J, l':"O. G6 or 1989 A.,dli.Io'.LILA ·1 J ,A. ..,, 1:,:::-2 Dii.l-X'.:CP.. CF PlIBLIC F~W:./JDTJ:::'10;:::;, • • ,• APP.7:;LL.:~;']:• I verm,s ' , ' . 1. 1 D. 69l!-!) :~G'J.' • ::..<:;:'l~u ::i1;r___ -{- • . • , • . • .• • '\ uD'5ffi~D:ll!TS 2. SLIDI 1,IZZC ~ - --({1ppea.l from tlle Ruling of -~I-le i:ig-J,1 · Cotu·t of Ta.nzanh at Li:ldi) · (Kazimoto, J .) dated the 25".li dE:y of' li.p1'il, 1909 i.n ~ ·,· t ::· f( J'J.OOI:ri:!r'l_i OF 'il2 CCU'rr'l' [fr·-.,.. "~---/r ~...-;..' R.!J,IAU:-.JJTI 2 J .L.: ·I'hio io an ap:,eaJ. by the Director of P·,·.blio Prosecutions against 1 ~f(' the ruling of KL.Zrnc~o, J. that the High Court cl.oes nJt po:;se<1s jurisdiction ({!~\ ,:,'< . _. to hear cases ui1c'..er the l!:conorriic ai-id Organized Crime Cbntrol Aot. 1984 where ,. \:..;i~➔'.W't the value of the subject matter is less than one raillid\n o!l.illi.11t:;s* ii 1 !:i~ / "'"' ,( ''.•i:,, · The respondents, B. 6945 Sgti .li.thumani and Saidi ~~0e, on 9th :t -.-;,~· _..,.,.. \r~ •::· Eovembe-r, T987--ie:t·~-a.-landrover pick-up, ~]lU 3342; outside tho Karume- . I J:Iemorial Stadium, Ilala 1 Dar es &.~aam, tU'lf,1.,.n.1•c1ed aad tfiereby catwed it "iio be s·i;obn. The l~.UG of the vehicle was '.i:'. 3b.s. 493~832/97 • %e charge - agail1st the respo11cl.ents war; prefer:c·ed on 16th April, 19y8 ancl. '.;he trial stz.rted. on 24th April, 1939. Ilowever, the ~onqmic arnl\Ore;anized Crime ;"'~.,~ · .. Control• (.Amend.men-I;) Act, 1987 ~fl.ct I;o4 12 of 1937) whic~ made the '. :;::-~/ jurisdiotionaJ. cha:.1ee, ca.me in-J;~ force ori 26th February, 1908. r.~:·~ . . .The learned trial judger drew the at·bention -of bo'tili parties fo I 'f~J.c:-~t1e issue of jurisdiction and invited both ootu1Gcl fo address the .. \"t( ·court on the same. ~. ::'•,•·,. 1:2he learned 5-tate At'~orney, Mr. I;yera, submiV~ed tm~fs;~e lii&1_· Court had jurisdiction beo·auoe t!J.e amenamJnt was not ·' :,::i:' .. . \ . ~~1.'Ni Mr. Kl,i.mwembe, the learned counsel for the' second aocused- ... ·>" ·.:_\1_1 ~: ,;1,•~ .. (now("~he second rcspondGnt) supported. that co,1"0e:;;1·~ion,i E:ow0ver, as -~ll~~w:.;,..-;- • · ,\ .. • . .... , .\ ,i r._~spondent 11either m:shcd to appcar'nor was he repreocntcd. submitted '.;hat as t.'.1.e offence We.G com,11it·~ed b_efo~o the a.mendmo11t, even I • though the c~:;go was prcfex:red af-tet it, the Righ Court had juri::id.iotion to hear the cai::e. Re 001..1;'.';M to rely on pa:ra{;'l'aph ( C) of. Section 14 of tho I 14. 11 Where an I.ct repeals f1.11Y. provicion of _another l~ct, then unloco ·tho contrary ir.tcntion appears, the repeal . ' shall not - (e) affect any invcstiga,doa 1 legal proceedingo, or remedy in rcup0ct of &l>J' such right privilego, o'bliga:~ion,- liability, pe11aUy, forfoi tu1•e; oi:_ J&J.nizhmcnt as afotosaid;.- and -a.1,:y such invo:;-~igatien, log-al prcicood.ings 1 • f 01· :ccmcdy may be ;i11:::U·,;1r~ed 1 continued or · enforced, and a11y such 1,ena.l'.;y, forfeiture, 1 or punishraent may' be imposed as if tho repealing_ Ac>.; had no-,; been 9nac·~0d. 11 • ITe 1 howovcr, concedod -~:hD.t 1,ct Uc• 12 of 1537 is not a repcali.;.g !sot but an amending one a.ml so the ::;ection does ao·~ apply to it. Ile also· admitted that mat·~e;:-s of jurisdiction aro procedural and -~hat ge119rally procedural law could be retro~~-~ive 1ltilo aubo·~~1tive law can only bo so if it is spocific.:,lly provi(lcc: IJJo -~he cr,sc, Tho first respondent did ;iot wish to adc1rcr.rn tho Caw.~ on ·fao ma.ttor.i ~t.• · · · ·,.· Ac}Jnittedly -~he off'e11ce was commitfod, -on 9th !iovembcr, 1987 a1'ld. ~f~~--- tb.6.t was before tho amendment came into fo;rco i.e. 26th February, 1983, t:,:·.:,/ ·· · howevor., tho charge was preferred after tho effoc'Give &!.te i.e. 011 16th It-.,{'ff-- ' ~~·0,~ \t.pril, 1988. It is our well consicl0red view ·tbat tho ili.gh Cciurt f.id not have f;:{}. · :jurisdiction to hoar tho oaso. I-~ would lmvo ha.cl jurisdiction, rcc;arcl+oss :, ~::,'.". . ·pf when tho trial r;ta.rlod 1 if the ollih'go wat: tiled boforo tho amondmant •• ~ "",-'"'1 l • ,]#~~ %~ '1, We therefore ca;.u1ot fauH the learned trial judge and wo ;~~r~- consequently dismiss ',ho appeal• };;\ !:;•~t~·. h;-_-. t}:·.... ¥~~-·:: :· •• . ".• . r •'; l· ,.:. :· ·:·-. ·. \t;·-~~f:j I .f' . 3 ... D!}].'fil) at D/Jl. ~.3 3ilJ•.:'J! this 23rd clcJt o-Z February, 1990. JUS'l1ICE I _;_-I, .•- M~ lfu.:'f..LILJ. I certify tlla·I; -~~lis "is a true copy of 'l;J.1e o~•igi1uil • ' .. .,, ..; ·.:i.,-· ( J. .•·n \_.,; ,SJ!27I01l DEPi.8:f P.EGIS'lTJ'.R • .·\ . (' ~' , J-. , ... 'M ' I• • .\.~t· ~; If,:·... c·· ',"f ~ ... -.,_ ..f'·· • ~-; .f ~-\){;-· -~~1. -::.f~~:•,::. .'iF _::'.I·::· ·..... .· .·\ . ~ \~' .. i,t:.-.~;f}.;~,:;-. __ /·L-· -"-------'-·:~;,it~,~