19880806 TZCA Dar es Salaam
Neither the High Court nor the District Court could invoke section 225(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the circumstances of this case, as it applies only to trials by subordinate courts. The respondent was wrongly discharged under this provision.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19880806 TZCA Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Juma Rajabu
- Court
- TZCA
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 6 August 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Discharge of Accused, Remand Custody, Application of Section 225(5) Criminal Procedure 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
Juma Rajabu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether section 225(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies to discharge in absence of trial
- 2 Whether the accused can be discharged when investigations are not ready and remand is prolonged
Ratio Decidendi
Neither the High Court nor the District Court could invoke section 225(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the circumstances of this case, as it applies only to trials by subordinate courts. The respondent was wrongly discharged under this provision.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Respondent and his co-accused to be arrested and remanded in custody to await trial
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
J. . ,. . In T!IE CO!,'rlT o;B' APPE.\L Qli'. 'TANZANIA . . . AT MW!.J-TZ.\. THlil'DIRl!DT® OF PUBLIC PROSDCUTIOliS • 0 • • Al'l'ELI,lli'T . VERSUS J\J?~ ru.T."..BU • • • • • • • • - • • • • • RESPOND~~ (APpeaJ. f'.rom the con·riction of the i:iah Court of Tanza.nia at Ta.".:.>ora) {IC01•osso, J.) da.ted. the 1oth day of ,.\9ril, 1987 :in Criminal Cc.UDe no. 1 of 1987 JUDGlll-rn:NT OF T::1E COUffi' This is an appeal by tho Dircoto:;: of Public .P-rosecutions 2.[\'3,:inst · ~· the ruling of the J':Ii2,h Court in HiscolL.neous Criminal Cause No. 1 . of ~ 1987, which discllP.rGed nespond.ent JUI11~e Rajab~ :f'rom th? ceoe of murdor feeing him. Respondent I s ~ix oo-acouced a.waiting P.l, 1ike - Raja.bu were ru.so ordered to 'tie disohar@3(1. • ,Appellant Republic represented by Mr. Tend.wa., learned sta.tc ,A.ttorney, in a.r[;Uinc his ground.El of appeal said tba.t diso~6'0 1r.:-.s 1 confined to trip.ls only and. thal'C 1ms no ti·i..'>l at tho District Court, only ad.journmcrtts for moro tha.n a ~re~. Tho Me.giatra.to could not .have diso~god tlle accused J)Elrson under section 225 (5) Criminal . proooduro Act boca.uso there w<'.B no trio.l and. tho offenoo of murder is 11ot trir-.blo by him. .Uld IIigh Court c,.nnot act und.Gr _section 225 (5) CL'imino.l P-roood·uro act boca.use this provision oonoorns trials by 0 subordinate Colll't s (Seo part VII 'af tl~o _Crim~l P-roooduro• Ao~)~- Iiigh ·- ·: CoUL't' ha.l!I inhorcnt powers to gi:-:;:.nt b'"'il but there was no 11 :in:f'oiinetion" bofOEo tho:jJi~_CoUL't, thcrcforo._..tho. c:i.so ua.s not ready for tria.l_ yet.· .. ...,- ,Jl-------.-~--..~-~~~~-----.-.--~~---t·,~•~.----.~.~.~.~. --.-.-,.-.-_-.-~-.-~-----~-;~;~;'.T(i~·.·,:.r:_:_:\; ~♦.- -r:,_':"!"-;;. 4. ' .;-;~ '+"•:· ~ , ,,-.1,., ,.,. ... ·,~. ~ "- ~- '. 2 t.i:t'. K:wikime. 102.rned Comscl fo:,:: tho respondent who made his first applicc..tion to tho District Cou...---t nnd tacn o.:ppce:.lod to tho High Court c.gc.inst tho :;:,uJ.:L-iG of the :Pistrict · Court adtlittod that :for him it Has a shot in tho dc::k bccc:.uso ho fol t if tho _... _......._ invcstigl;',tions ;re:cc not ready o:..• nri:..·o draggin:;- on .indofinitoly i_.." I tho o.c:msed :pcriaion 02..nnot be t1cdc to m.1.:ff0r bcillC in :..•emend. -in- dof'initoly. _T',10 Court. must hc..vc :po,:tTC:.'s --~~-3o~cuo the accused· person faced with this situation. ., \ Wo arc of tho considei·od -vic.r tl1.:-.t the Republic ca.n be po.i:sun.ded by tho Oourt to 1-Ti thd.I-au tho chm-go ag2..inst tho acct-..sod I if invcstig;;:,tions arc not rco.d.y end ·tho o.ccused. is unduly kept in : rocz.nd. custody. nut to invoke section 225 (5) of Crimino.l Procoduro j,ct for this :pt.n'].)osc is to r.;iaconstJ~t'.O tho mo6ning of' this se::ction. Noithor the Eich Coi.U'.'t nor tho District Court in tho ci!'ct-u;istcJ1cos ·o:f this case could h"'vc used thfo !)n.;;.'t:i,cula:r provision, of tho lau. T-To order that the :respondent who lUl.d been 1-r.i::onc;ly disch.."'..1'609- be o.-r:rostcd end romc.nded in custody to 0"0thor with his six co-c.couaccl- so tb.:-,.t they nic.y e.ua.it their tz-ic,l in this cc.Ge. . DATED at M!{.':JTZ..~ this 6th dn;r of 1,ugust, 1983. I i I. ·rcIS..'.,MGl) OF !..PP::llll, • I ' r . t-' (:•• 1:1. :... CXvLIB) I f. \ JUSTICD O:!J' 1...PPE.U. I o·ortify that this is o, true copy of tho original. (J;. 'H. ~"17/t ~) ................ , J; ,, ).~ .. SEN I@DEPUTY =mGISTR.';,R ... ✓ • ,: . ' _.;~ ?+H.f~