19700513 TZHC Dar es salaam
The appeal was allowed because mere delay in delivering a prisoner does not amount to contempt of court unless intentional disrespect is proved, and all ingredients of the offence were not established.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19700513 TZHC Dar es salaam
- Parties
- Respondent: The Republic; Appellant: Elias Athanas Bangtu
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 13 May 1970
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Intentional Disrespect, Ingredients of Offence
- 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
The Republic
Respondent
Elias Athanas Bangtu
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether mere delay in delivering a prisoner constitutes contempt of court under section 114(1) of the Penal Code
- 2 Whether all ingredients of the offence were proved
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was allowed because mere delay in delivering a prisoner does not amount to contempt of court unless intentional disrespect is proved, and all ingredients of the offence were not established.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- conviction and sentence set aside
- fine to be refunded to appellant forthwith
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN TIE HIGH C(XTRT OP TANZANIA L (, AM DAB ES SAIi&AM APPELLATE JURISDICTION CBfliINAL APPEAL NO 48 OP 1970 Original Criminal Case No 128 of 199 of the District Court of Eandeni Djàtrict at Eandeni before N. L. Masawe District Magistrate, THE REPUBLIC versus ELIAS ATHANAS BANGTJ CHABGE: Contempt of Court c/s 114 W(i) of the Penal Code HMLYN, 3. - In this case there seems to have been trouble between Police and Prison Officers which resulted In the nondeiivery of a prisoner to the couxt at the proper tIme. The trial MagIstrate seems to have tWen this as being an act of intenticnal disrespect to a judicial proceeding, though there is really nothing to warrant such assimption. Mere delay, though annoying, is not intentional disrespect if nothing further be sho*n and some additional factor must be proved before the offence is complete. While this court deplores any police or prison officer not cérrying out his duties efficiently to expedlate the business of the court s t1iat does not necessarily show that a criminal offence ha& been corn itted. A report by the court to theSenior Officer of the police or prison certairly would suffice. In the result it is clear that the appeal must be aJ.io*ed as I am not satIsfied that all the ingredients of the offence exist-b The appeal is therefore allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside. The fine Is to be refunded to the appellant forthwith Dr es Salasm. 13th May, 1970 Sgd. 0. T. HAIvIIYN. JUDGE.