fala so mboje vs kija do mange 2015 tzhc 2193 16 february 2015
- Citation
- fala so mboje vs kija do mange 2015 tzhc 2193 16 february 2015
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 16 February 2015
- Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 16 February 2015
- Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Failure to supply judgment copy does not justify revision as alternative to appeal; no records proven destroyed or irretrievable; application dismissed.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Registrar to follow up and trace lower court records and bring them together with this file immediately.
- Right of appeal explained.
02
Material facts
Parties
Fala s/o Mboje
ApplicantKija d/o Mange
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether failure by court to supply copy of judgment and records for appeal purposes is a good cause for pursuing revisional proceedings as alternative to appeal process
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant expressed intention to appeal and requested for copy of judgment, which was not supplied despite repeated requests, leading him to apply for revision.
- Respondent
- Respondent did not appear and provided no input; court noted respondent's input was immaterial given nature of applicant's complaint.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Trite law; Criminal Procedure Act Cap. 20 R.E. 2002
Revision is not an appeal in disguise and neither is a substitute for the other; only applicable when appeal is blocked.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act Cap. 20 R.E. 2002
Applicants must show persistent absence of material records and support allegations with affidavit from registry.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Failure to supply judgment copy does not justify revision as alternative to appeal; no records proven destroyed or irretrievable; application dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Applicant does not intend judgment to be quashed and him set at liberty for want of records unless exceptional circumstances dictate.
- Allowing relief for missing records without proper proof risks suffocation of justice and opens possibility of abuse by ill-intent court users.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- Registrar to follow up and trace lower court records and bring them together with this file immediately.
- Right of appeal explained.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 16 February 2015
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.
TZHC
Judgment· 16 February 2015
IN THE HIGH CC T OF TANZANIA .
AT TABORA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Tabora Registry) MISC. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 97 OF 2014 (ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3 OF 2003 ON THE DISTRICT COURT OF MEATU DISTRICT AT MEATU) FALA S/O MBOJE................................................APPELLANT $ (Original Accused)
VERSUS KIJA D/O MANGE.................................... .......... RESPONDENT (Original Prosecutor)
RULING RUMANYIKA, J. Fala Mboje (the Applicant) applies under S. 372 of the Criminal Procedure Act Cap. 20 R.E. 200' (the Act) for this court to revise decision of Meatu District Court of even date. Original Criminal Case No. 133 of 2002. The contents of material affidavit wholily adopted by the Applicant at the hearing will witness that the moment he was convicted and sentenced on 12.12.2013, the Applicant expressed intention of appeal and as usual, he asked for copy of the impugned judgment. Nothing came out. Irrespective of several and repeated requests. Like disappointed, that he decided to apply for revision instead. I never had.the Respondent in court. His reaction or at all. Because under the law, non appearances of the parties in court notwithstanding revisional proceedings were possible (S.374 of the Criminal Procedure Act Cap.20 R.E. 2002). But what is more, the Respondents' inpute was immaterial. Given nature of the Applicants' complaint. The central issue is whether failure by court to supply copy of judgment and or records for appeal purposes is a good cause for pursuing revisional proceedings as alternative to appeal process. I will answer it in the negative. It is trite law that revision is no appeal in disguise. None of the two is substitute of each other. It is only where one is blocked, like it seems to have happened here (if at all) -Denial of copy of the
judgment to be appealed against. But there is nothing before me at the now time that I can revise. I understand that at times, courts may only rely on complainants of any person. Equally so I understand that parties in criminal cases are not obliged to prepare and even keep court records. Only the courts are. Nevertheless it is incumbent upon whoever seeks court's intervention to show that despite demands for, the material records persistently miss. And such serious allegations need be deponed also in the affidavit of the respective registry supporting the application. Provided that whenever records are not proven as having been destroyed or otherwise not retrievable it will be not prudent for the court to order a trial, but as last resort. Short of which it tantamounting to short circuiting justice. May I say a word in passing. J just do not think that the Applicant intends that the judgment in issue be quashed and him be set at liberty for want of the lower court's records. Unless the circumstances otherwise but exceptionally dictates, which is not the case here, I will decline to risk suffocation of justice. As allowing it to prevail, not only it will open Pandora's box but also, the 3 possibility of few ill intent court users subbortaging court registries and record tracking systems would not be ruled out. Parties should before coming to court do so not only properly, but
also ask for proper reliefs at right time. All said, and as the order calling for records is still inforce, the purported application suffers the consequences. By this ruling, the Registrar of this court is compelled to follow up the records very closely and more seriously. As it is not clear to me if "calling for records" ever issued (if at all) several times and repeatedly was ever executed. Leave alone the said letters and reminders by the Applicant to the DRMi/c. Upon the lower courts now being traced, the same be brought to me together with this file immediately. The purported application is on that basis dismissed. Right of Appeal explained. i S.M. RUMANYIKA* I v
JUDGE i 12/ 02/2015 Delivered under my hand and seal of the court in chambers. This 16/02/2015 in the presence of.. S. M. RUMANYIKA
JUDGE 16/ 02/2015
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.