joseph steven gwaza vs attorney general another 2019 tzhc 277 22 october 2019

joseph steven gwaza vs attorney general another 2019 tzhc 277 22 october 2019

Section 6(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it grants the DPP an unfettered right to appeal against any order in a criminal case, while denying the same right to accused persons, thereby violating the constitutional guarantees of equality before the law, protection against discrimination, and the right to a fair hearing under articles 13(1), 13(2), and 13(6)(a) of the Constitution. Section 225(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not unconstitutional as its exclusion of economic offences triable by the High Court from the protections of section 225 is justified by the complex nature of such offences and is saved by article 30(2) of the Constitution.

Citation
joseph steven gwaza vs attorney general another 2019 tzhc 277 22 october 2019
Parties
Petitioner: Joseph Steven Gwaza; 1st Respondent: The Attorney General; 2nd Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecution
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
22 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition partly allowed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Right to Fair Hearing, Right of Appeal, Equality Before the Law, Constitutionality of Statutory Provisions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Discrimination Right to Fair Hearing Right of Appeal Equality Before the Law Constitutionality of Statutory Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Steven Gwaza

Petitioner

The Attorney General

1st Respondent

The Director of Public Prosecution

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 6(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act is unconstitutional for violating articles 13(1), 13(2), and 13(6)(a) of the Constitution by granting the DPP a right of appeal against any order in a criminal case not equally available to accused persons
  2. 2 Whether section 225(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional for excluding accused persons charged with economic offences triable by the High Court from protections under section 225(1)-(5) of the CPA

Ratio Decidendi

Section 6(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it grants the DPP an unfettered right to appeal against any order in a criminal case, while denying the same right to accused persons, thereby violating the constitutional guarantees of equality before the law, protection against discrimination, and the right to a fair hearing under articles 13(1), 13(2), and 13(6)(a) of the Constitution. Section 225(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not unconstitutional as its exclusion of economic offences triable by the High Court from the protections of section 225 is justified by the complex nature of such offences and is saved by article 30(2) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

petition partly allowed

Orders

  • Section 6(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act is declared void and struck out to the extent it allows the DPP to appeal against any order of the court in a criminal case, except for appeals against acquittal or sentence.
  • Prayer regarding section 225(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is declined for lack of merit.