Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZCA

20111116 TZCA Mwanza

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal was withdrawn as per the appellant's application and the respondent's lack of objection, in accordance with Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.

Court disposition

appeal withdrawn

Orders

  • Appeal marked withdrawn under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

02

Material facts

Parties

Erasto Joseph

Appellant Counsel: Deya Outa

The Republic

Respondent Counsel: Pius Hilla

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Withdrawal Before Hearing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the appeal should be withdrawn under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant applied to withdraw the appeal under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
Respondent
The respondent had no objection to the withdrawal application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

    Appeal may be withdrawn by appellant with leave of the court under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal was withdrawn as per the appellant's application and the respondent's lack of objection, in accordance with Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.

Court disposition

appeal withdrawn

  • Appeal marked withdrawn under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

Source and reliance status

TZCA · 16 November 2011

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZCA

Judgment· 16 November 2011

20111116 TZCA Mwanza

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA

ATMWANZA (CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., MASSATI, J.A., AND MANDIA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2010 ERASTO JOSEPH ••••••.•••••••••.••...••••••·••••••.•••••••••••••••• ~ ••••.•••••••••••••••• APPELLANT

VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RESPONDENT (Application for Conviction of the High court of Tanzania at Bukoba) ( Mzuna J.) dated 6th day of August, 2009 in Criminal Sess·ion No. 96 of 2005

RULING IN THE COURT 16th November, 2011 MANDIA. J.A.: The appeal was set for hearing this morning. The appellant was represented by Mr. Deya Outa, learned advocate, while the respondent Republic is represented by Mr. Pius Hilla, and learned State Attorney. Mr. Deya Outa, learned advocate, has applied to the Court to withdraw the appeal under Rule 4(2) (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1 ,, ' ',./2009. Mr. Pius Hilla, learned State Attorney, has no objection to the ', prayer. On our part we accede to the prayers. The appeal is accordingly , marked withdrawn under Rule 4 (2) (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. Order accordingly. DATED at MWANZA this 16th day of November, 2011. H. R. NSEKELA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. A. MASSATI

JUSTICE OF APPEAL W. S. MANDIA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original ~rKYA

SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

COURT OF APPEAL 2

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.