19910631 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The delay in lodging the appeal was admitted and without excuse, no point of law was raised in the proposed grounds of appeal, and no notice of appeal was filed, rendering the application incompetent.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19910631 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Hussein Hassan Ally; Respondent: Shckii Sadik
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Out of Time, Delay in Filing Appeal, Grounds of Appeal
- 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
Applicant
Hussein Hassan Ally
Respondent
Shckii Sadik
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the delay in lodging the appeal was excusable
- 2 Whether the proposed grounds of appeal raise a point of law
- 3 Whether the application is competent without a notice of appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The delay in lodging the appeal was admitted and without excuse, no point of law was raised in the proposed grounds of appeal, and no notice of appeal was filed, rendering the application incompetent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
/ iHSC. CRIMINAL CAUSE Nu. 22 uF i 991 IN THE MATTER CF AW A?PLICJ.TION FOR APPEAL OUT OF TIM~ AND IN THE MATTl!:R OF CRIMINAL CllSE NJ. 547/90 . IN THE DISTRicT COURT OF ILA1A DISTRICT AT ,l; KISUTU. D??. VERSUS HUSSEIN HASSA~ ALLY SHCKii.T SADIK. RULING LUGAKINGIRA,J: I am not su:Trised that counsel for the Ilepublic could not reply to the submissions ·r,y counsel for the respondents. ·The application is indeed without subs tar.ce. In the aff~tavit the deponent stated, I quote, 11 ••• the delay in lodging this ap1eal was purely an intentional act of the prosecutor, . . which was aime,l at frustrating any effort by the D0P0Po to appeal against the decision." l,tr. ~1wajasho for the respondents has submitted tha.t this is speculative. I agree, But is more than that. In so far as I am qoncerned there is no ·div:-.sion between the prosecutor and the D•.P.?.1 so if the prosecutor intentionally delayed the appeal, it means the D.J?,.l?. intentionally delayed the app1,al, and s:o the D.P • .i?. cannot be h(,ard to complain against himself, It is therefore admitted that the delay ·ms without excuse. Se◊ondly, there is no point of law revealed in the proposed grounds of appeal as, in fact, what is a11ijded to, the idertify of the motor vehicle, is a point of faot. Finally, as pointed out by ivir. Mwa,jasho, th[: application is ·presumptuous. as it does not address itself to the fact that 111 notice of appeal has ever been.filed either. I dismiss the application. J ' t1 ~;;tr;GIRA JUDGE. DAR ES SALAAM 31st July, 19~)1 • ./