19920513 TZCA Arusha 1
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements regarding service and lodging of the memorandum of appeal and notice of appeal within the prescribed time limits.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19920513 TZCA Arusha 1
- Parties
- Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Edward Siara Kivuyo; Respondent: Nicky Joseph
- Court
- TZCA
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 13 May 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Preliminary Objection Before Hearing of Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Economic Crimes, Appeal Dismissal, Procedural Compliance
- 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
Edward Siara Kivuyo
Respondent
Nicky Joseph
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Preliminary Objection Before Hearing of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure to serve the memorandum of appeal and notice of appeal as required by the Court of Appeal Rules
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements regarding service and lodging of the memorandum of appeal and notice of appeal within the prescribed time limits.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed under Rule 65(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- Appellant may apply for extension of time to file memorandum of appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
nr THE COilllT OF APPEAL 01!, TANZANIA ~~ {,g_OR.AMg QMAd., ,J .A.,,,. IY~1Ll1HANI, J,.,J.i,.,q ,MID r-mZAVAS, J .A.) CKIM!H.i:\L APPE!.L HO • 6 Cl!"' 1992 BET\-r.8EN 1 THE DB:i!CTO"f:l Ol! I'U.DLIC P.l:10SJCUTIONS. • • • APPBLLAlilT AND .1 • EDWrUGJ DB}"Ll KIVUY O I 2 •. NICICf JOSEPH ' . • ••••RESPOlifroNTS (Appeal from the oonvictio.n of the Hish court of Tanzania at A.rusha) (!challa 1,, J .) dat.ed .the 2nd day of July, 1991 in J - inJLII\'G Oli' TH:8 COURT . OM.'.IR I J .A •., : .P.ublic The Director ofL PrOS4-0utions i.s appealing against the acq_uittal of the two accused. -EdwaM Siara K ~ and Nicky Joseph charged with economic crimes offences. But b:;-fo.1:e this appeal was heard the Court was invited by. J:YT.r. Mahatane, learned counsel for the respondents to consider the Notice of Hot ion lodged by him under Rules 61 (2), 63 and 65 of the Tanz;;mic Court of Appeal Rules, 1979. Nr. Mahatanc in this applicntion proyod for the dismissal of th1;:_ appe~l . -· .. ., ~ under rule 65 (5) on the ground that till midday of the 1 29/4/92 the respondents had rot .rGOG ivad a Memorandum of Appeal in this case, nor was it lodg.:d in any,?otistcy .. ~ .• 'I of th2 Court of 'Apponl" up to-28/4/92."" - .. 2 ... Mr. Mc::hotone al.so submitted thot the Notice, of f1ppaol was not served upon the respondents as required by Rule 63 of the Tanzania Gourt of App-:nl Rules, 1979 ~ Further the Notice of Appeal lacks statutory details ·as stipulated in Rules 61 (2) of Cow:t of App::rnl Rules. The raeord of oppca;L, was according to M.l:. Mohatonc 1 a offidovit served upon him on or bcf ore 13/4/92. he was late in lodging his appeal. Ho gave his .roftsons for the delay ns on oversight .:ind he added thot .raeord of appool WMS received in his Okiomb<J:rs on 19r,/92 and tho)" lod$Qd. th; mcmornndum of appucl in the Oou»t of .li.:ppcal-, .AJf'liJba. S-i.\~..,.let_g.<t.11'#• on 213/4/92 nearly one on<l half months later instead of within 14 , ddys ns .rcquirud by rule 65(1) of Court of l~_ppc.:ril R\1los. In t.b,-:s-.:; c~oumsto~ \-IC \\]?hol.d ~~ ~18-~"4> ohj.;.o~ We dismiss the nppcal under X"ulc .65(5) of Court o:f "Appeal Rules and direct that the appallant, if hs is so minded, mokc o formal applic::::tion (undc.r I\ulcs 45 and 46 of Court of Appeal Rules) for cxt-.:nsion of time under rule 8 to file his mcmorondum It is so o::.-dcrcd.• DATED ct' JJUJSHL this 13th doy of Mny, 1992. A • N • A• OMfJl. JUSTIC1i: OF il.PPEi1.L •• 0 ./3 - 3 . ,- 1). • S .• L. Rl:J11J)H.l\.Nl JUSTICE OF API-EAL U. S. MNZli.VAS JUSTICE OF APPEAL I .CC-1!tify :that thia is· e t.ruo, eow of the or~DDl • M ( M• &-/ SHAN,.LI . ) ,.DEPJJJ[ ROOIS'm/.U