emmanuel george munisi another vs republic 2018 tzhcced 4 28 february 2018

emmanuel george munisi another vs republic 2018 tzhcced 4 28 february 2018

Section 29(1) of the Drug Control and Enforcement Act, as amended, expressly prohibits the grant of bail to persons charged with dealing in precursor chemicals in quantities of 30 litres or more in liquid form. The applicants were found with 414 litres, thus the court has no jurisdiction to grant bail. There is no ambiguity in the provision to warrant interpretation in favour of the applicants.

Citation
emmanuel george munisi another vs republic 2018 tzhcced 4 28 february 2018
Parties
Applicant: Emmanuel George Munisi; Applicant: Samwel John Petro; Respondent: The Republic
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Bail, Statutory Interpretation, Precursor Chemicals, Non Bailable Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Economic Crimes Drug Control Bail Statutory Interpretation Precursor Chemicals Non Bailable Offences

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel George Munisi

Applicant

Samwel John Petro

Applicant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Application / Ruling on Bail Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to bail under the Drug Control and Enforcement Act for the offence charged
  2. 2 Whether section 29(1) of the Drug Control and Enforcement Act is ambiguous or unconstitutional as regards bail for precursor chemicals

Ratio Decidendi

Section 29(1) of the Drug Control and Enforcement Act, as amended, expressly prohibits the grant of bail to persons charged with dealing in precursor chemicals in quantities of 30 litres or more in liquid form. The applicants were found with 414 litres, thus the court has no jurisdiction to grant bail. There is no ambiguity in the provision to warrant interpretation in favour of the applicants.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Bail application is dismissed.