hamis said luwongo vs republic 2023 tzhc 17269 28 april 2023

hamis said luwongo vs republic 2023 tzhc 17269 28 april 2023

Although the ongoing committal proceedings at the subordinate court contravene section 91(3) of the CPA and amount to an abuse of process, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise or intervene in such proceedings before a committal order is made; the proper forum for the complaint is the presiding resident magistrate at the subordinate court.

Citation
hamis said luwongo vs republic 2023 tzhc 17269 28 april 2023
Parties
Applicant: Hamis Said Luwongo; Respondent: Republic
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision Under Section 372(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Nolle Prosequi, Committal Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Section 91(3) of CPA
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Nolle Prosequi Committal Proceedings Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Section 91(3) of CPA

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamis Said Luwongo

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision Under Section 372(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ongoing committal proceedings at the subordinate court are illegal or an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to revise pending committal proceedings before a committal order is made

Ratio Decidendi

Although the ongoing committal proceedings at the subordinate court contravene section 91(3) of the CPA and amount to an abuse of process, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise or intervene in such proceedings before a committal order is made; the proper forum for the complaint is the presiding resident magistrate at the subordinate court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  • The applicant is instructed to raise the allegation on the legality of the ongoing committal proceedings before the presiding resident magistrate, who shall rule thereon with immediate dispatch.