19870606 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The appeal is incompetent because the Director of Public Prosecutions did not file a Notice of Intention to Appeal as required by section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19870606 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Jilie Mungongo; Respondent: Freddy Kisijo
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 6 June 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Admission of Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal rejected as incompetent
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Procedure, Notice of Intention to Appeal, Stealing by Servant
- 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
Jilie Mungongo
Respondent
Freddy Kisijo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Admission of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions is competent in the absence of a Notice of Intention to Appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is incompetent because the Director of Public Prosecutions did not file a Notice of Intention to Appeal as required by section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Court Disposition
appeal rejected as incompetent
Orders
- The appeal is rejected due to lack of Notice of Intention to Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
fflE UNITED REPUBLIC 0~ TANZ;~NIJ, I IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZ.ii.NIA AT DAR ES Sil.L!J1.M Jt:, APPELIJiTE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMIN.L\L 10?1:TEAL NO. 59 OF 1984 ORIGINiiL CRIMINAL CAS:G NO. 946 OF 1983 OF THE DISTRICT COURT· OJ:!• ICTSUTU DISTRICT A'.i.: D' SALAJ\M B~fo~e N. Chaoha, Esq., Resident Mai::;istrate . ..... versus ' J iiliE MUNGONGO & ,,FREDDY KISlJJO • • • • • RESPONDENTS -------·-- Charge: Stealing by servant c/s. 271 and.265 of the Penal Code. 0 R D E R KY.AN00 1 J, In this matter the Director of Publ'ic Prosecutions is appealing. The recprd of the case has·been brought to me for admission of the appeal "or otherwisen, On going through the records of both the District Court and this Court, I have found' that there is no Notice of Intention to Appeal filed by the TIPP• Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No. 9 of 1985 provides:- " 379 No appeal under· section 378 (which provides for appeals by the DPP) shall be entertained unless the Director of Public Prosecutions - (a)· shall have given notice of his intention to appeal to the ·Subordinnte Court within thirty days of the acquittal. • • ·• • • • • against which he wishes to appeals and - (b) • • ·• • •. •. • • • • • •• •. •. • • .... • • • • •. • •. • ..•••• • • • • • ••••• ♦ ••• ♦ ♦ <: Cl t, ♦ ♦ • ♦ t • f ♦ ♦ • t • • • f •• ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ •• e f •••• I h«te taken the trouble to check with the Deputy Registrar of the High Court here ~nd he hos informed me that he has failed to trocc the Notice of Intention to Appeal in· this case. I am satis- fied that no Notice of Intention to Appeal v1ns given by the DPP in - 2 - in this case and in view of the man<latory provisions of section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Act as regards such Notice the appea is incompetent and is hereby rejected. '-· 11 T D1;R ES SJJJ\.AM #1 -/I \/_ft \' cC . L. A,, A. KYANIX) OI DNl!E: 6TH JUNE, 1987 ------- JUDGE