19880511 TZHC Dar es Salaam

) IN 'I'H.6 HIGH COU.t<T uF T1ll\~1tNIA hT Iu-,..cl ES ShLJ-u-1M APPbLLATb JURISDICTiuN HIGH CUUHT CiUMINhL .ii.PPE.nL NO. 9/83 UHIGINhL CHIMINAL CASE NOo 173 OF 1980 Of the District Court of Dar es Salaam District at Kivukoni Before GUMBO 1sq. District Magistrate. Diiti.iCTUH uF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ••••••••••• APPELLANT (Original Prosecutor) versus D~WIJI AMIHA VIoRAM ••••••••••••••••••• lIB~PONDBNT (Original Accused) HUL I NG M.l{J!;MA, DH. -(~xtended jurisdiction) It is unfortunate that the appellent, the Director of Public Prosecutions filed an appeal against the order of the then Senior District Magistrate, Mr. Gumbo, passed on 15th September, 1980 ordering the seized goods, which was the subjeot of conviction, to the respondent, well over two years after judgement and order of the Magistrate was made. The two years period provided on opportunity to the rtespondent to collect the goods as ordered by the trial court. There was no order made to prevent him from so doing. However, as the tespondent is dead, it is not now known whether or no~ the goods which were seized from him were ever returned to the respondent. hlso I have studied the memorandum of appeal but no I where in the papers filed is there a chamber application supported with the D.P.P's affidavit for leave to appeal out of time. As it appears on record, date of judgement of the lower court record was on 15th ~eptember, 1980, where as the date of intention to appeal was on 15th J&p'U&r11~r·l,9~-'bd1j1.d the date of filing the apped.l was on 20th January, 1983. RS I'have said above, it is now pointiliess for me to consiciE:r anct decide on the vp..-.li_:~i.t(Jy of the filing of the appe 8 1 since the rt:spondent against whom the l:l.ppeal was intended is no longer alive. 0 imjilarly, even if the goods were to be ordered to be forfeited to the Governmentft 1here will be no person against whom the order has been m&de to comply with that ordera P~rhaps it is also import~nt to comment in passing that, reading the whole which was proceedings of the lower court, there was nothinfll'.produced to that court other than documents. The alleged seized goods were never brought to the court as the subject matter of the case. It was not even mentioned whether the goods were retained by the customs auth~rity or not. be that as it may, my only duty now is to order the abutement of the case under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure hct, 1985, and in my mind, to make any other order in favour of the appellant is to go against the rules of natural justice ''that nobody ....... /2 .... - - 2 - sh:U.\d be condemned unheard. For the above reasons, the appeal abates in view of the death of the respondent. i-1.o Co MREMl-i. J:.>RINCIPAL .l:<t.;.S IlJbNT Mi-l.GISTRA.T-8 (~xtended jurisdiction) 11/5/1988 i.Jelivered at . Dar es balaam 11th May, 1988. Mr. Mallaba - for the kppellant i-1.bsent - for .Hespondent. I I Ii A.l~ PRINCIPAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATE (~xtended Jurisdiction) 1J1-1.~ li:S SAL1,1-i.M 11th May 2 1988.