Gerad Neke vs DDP

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT KIGOMA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 000035104 OF 2024 GERADI NEKE @MPANGAJI .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT VERSUS OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING NKWABI, J 05 & 05/02/2025 This is a ruling in an application for extension of time within which to lodge a notice of appeal and petition of appeal. It is supported by the affidavit of the applicant. According to the file that is registered in the Case Management System, the respondent is impleaded to be THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS. I called upon the parties to address me on the propriety or otherwise of impleading an office instead of a natural person or a legal person. Mr. Makongo, learned State Attorney who represented the respondent unequivocally submitted that that was improper and it rendered the application incompetent and should be struck out. The applicant, being a lay person had nothing to submit but left it to the Court to decide. I should make it clear that when I was raising the question, I was having in mind three decisions. The first one is Ilela Village Council v. Ansaar Muslim Youth Centre, Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2019 CAT (unreported) where it was held that: “It follows then that, in law, Ansaar Muslim Youth Centre does not legally exist. As such, any order and/or decree issued in the name of Ansaar Muslim Youth Centre will not be executable because the properties of the Registered Trustees of Ansaar Muslim Youth Centre are not vested in the 1st respondent. Furthermore, the 1st respondent does not have powers to transact any business or invest or manage the properties of the Registered Trustees of Ansaar Muslim Youth Centre.” Page. 1 Hon... JOHN NKWABI I may also parrot Registered Trustees of Chama Cha Mapinduzi v. Mohamed Ibrahim Versi and Sons & Another, Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2008, CAT, (unreported) where it was stated that: “Incorporation Act, renders it a body corporate by that name with the power to sue and be sued in that corporate name (see section 8(1) and (6). Therefore, in law, the Registered Trustees of C.C.M. is a separate person with its own legal identity distinct from Naibu Katibu Mkuu C.C.M.” The rationale for that position of the law was articulated in Unilife Group Investment v. Biafra Secondary School & Another, Civil Appeal No. 144 (B) of 2008, (unreported) where it was underlined that: “The reason why parties to court proceedings must be adequately identified is that, court proceedings are a very vital process through which litigants’ rights are determined. They result to two possibilities, i.e. winning a case or losing it. It follows therefore that, courts must be certain of the parties before them so that if a party wins the case, then the court must be assured that the right goes to a proper person entitled to it. The same way if a party loses a case the court must be sure that the liability goes to the proper person who is liable, hence the significance to the properly describe the capacities and identities of the parties in the pleadings and adequately demonstrate the same in the evidence during the trial.” The above said, I find that this application for extension of time to lodge a notice of intention of appeal and petition of appeal is incompetent just as per the stance of Mr. Makongo, learned State Attorney. This application is thus, struck out. It is so ordered. Dated at KIGOMA this 5th of February 2025 . J. NKWABI JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 2 Hon... JOHN NKWABI