20100312 TZCA Tanga 2
- Citation
- 20100312 TZCA Tanga 2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 12 March 2010
- Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Review
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 12 March 2010
- Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Review
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was dismissed because the supporting affidavit was defective and unverified, and the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay or likelihood of success in the intended review.
Court disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application for extension of time to file review is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Gumbo Omar
ApplicantThe Republic
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Tumaini Kweka03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to file a review
- 02
Whether the supporting affidavit complies with legal requirements
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant failed to file the application in time because he was in prison and was not satisfied with the judgment.
- Respondent
- The affidavit is defective as it does not comply with the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, is not verified, and the applicant has not shown sufficient cause for delay.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, CAP 34 R.E. 2002
An affidavit in support of an application must comply with the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act and be properly verified.
- 02
Rule 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009; Royal Insurance Tanzania Limited v Kiwangwa Strand Hotel Limited, Civil Application No. 111 of 2009 (unreported)
An applicant for extension of time must show sufficient cause, including likelihood of success of the intended review.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was dismissed because the supporting affidavit was defective and unverified, and the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay or likelihood of success in the intended review.
Obiter and limits
- Reviews are governed by Rule 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, and conditions for applying for review are enumerated therein.
- Filing a new appeal is not allowed in place of a review.
Court disposition
Application dismissed
- Application for extension of time to file review is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
TZCA · 12 March 2010
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.
TZCA
Judgment· 12 March 2010
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA
ATTANGA CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2009 GUMBO OMAR! .............................................................. APPLICANT
VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ............................................................ RES PON DENT (Application for Extension of Time to File Review from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Tanga} (Munuo, J.A., Msoffe, J.A., And Kaji, J.A.} dated 3rd day of June, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2004
RULING KIMARO, J.A.: This is an application for extension of time to file a review. The applicant appeared in person. The respondent Republic is represented · , by Mr. Tumaini Kweka, learned State Attorney. The judgment which the applicant wants to challenge in a review was delivered on 3rd June, 2005. Among the reasons which the applicant has given in his affidavit in support of the application is that he failed to file the application in time because of being in prison. That he was not satisfied with the judgment. The application was filed on 29/05/2009. a Mr. Tumaini Kweka learned State Attorney has vehemently opposed the application. He challenged the supporting affidavit that it does not comply with the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, CAP 34 R.E. 2002 in that the applicant did not comply with the format provided for swearing/affirming oath, and that the affidavit is not verified. He further submitted that the applicant has not given ' · sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application. On my part I entirely agree with the learned State Attorney. The affidavit is not verified and it is not properly deponed as per the requirement of the law. The applicant informed the Court that he was not satisfied with the judgment of the Court and he wants to challenge it by a review. Reviews are governed by Rule 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 . which became effective
on 1st February, 2010. Conditions for applying for review are enumerated in the said provision. I In an application for extension of time under Rule 10 of the new Rules, the applicant must show sufficient cause. One of the factors which the applicant must satisfy is to show that the review is likely to 2 I .l. ~\. ·,,,,,, . .-.?.l. • ,· ."1.. ··: tr l ' '-) ' ' ' · succeed. · See the case of Royal Insurance Tanzania Limited v Kiwangwa Strand Hotel Limited, Civil Application No. 111 of 2009 (unreported). The affidavit apart from being defective does not show why the applicant wants to challenge the judgment. Instead he talks of filing a new appeal. Such a situation is not allowed. See the case of Miraji Seif v R, Criminal Application No. 2 of 2009 (unreported). · Under the circumstances I will entirely agree with learned State Attorney on the defects pointed out in respect of the affidavit and add that the applicant has totally failed to show reasons for granting the application. It is dismissed. DATED at TANGA this lih day of March, 2010. N. P. KIMARO
JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. ' : ~ . ~- ~ \ (N. N. CHUSI) / DEPUTY REGISTRAR ... 3
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.