Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

N

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The conviction was quashed because the charge was defective, the courts lacked jurisdiction, and prosecutorial consent was not obtained.

Court disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • conviction quashed
  • sentence set aside
  • appellant released

02

Material facts

Parties

Haruna Salum

Appellant

The United Republic

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The charge was defective, the offence did not exist as charged, and proper consent was not obtained.
Respondent
Not stated.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Penal Code, Section 89(1)(b)

    A charge must correctly state an offence known to law and relate to the proper section of the Penal Code.

  2. 02

    Penal Code, Section 214

    Threat to murder under Section 214 of the Penal Code must be in writing.

  3. 03

    Penal Code, Section 89(1)(b)

    Prosecution under Section 89(1)(b) requires written consent from the Director of Public Prosecution.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The conviction was quashed because the charge was defective, the courts lacked jurisdiction, and prosecutorial consent was not obtained.

Court disposition

appeal allowed

  • conviction quashed
  • sentence set aside
  • appellant released

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 1 January 1984

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

TZHC

Judgment· 1 January 1984

N

IN THE IITGH COURT OF TANUNIA AT D!R ES SALAAM L~ APPELLATE JURISDIC~IOB HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.62/84 ORIGINAL CRIJ\!1INAL REVISION NO.4/84 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF ILP.LA DISTRICT AT SAMORA AVENUE Before KAYOMBO ESQ., SENIOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HA.RUNA SALUllii •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , ••••• APPELLANT versus THE UNITED REPUBLIC ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RESPONTIENT JUDGl\tENT JHAVERI 1 AG. J. This is an appeal from Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1984 by J. N. Kayombo~. Senior District Magistrate from original Criminal case No. 567 of 1984 of Kariakoo Primary Court. The Appellant was charged under Section 89(1)(b) of the Penal Code. Firstly trial proceeded on a defective charge as there is no offence for threatening to murder by word under the Penal Code. Statement of offence did not correctly relate to Section s9(1)(b) of the Penal Code and as such the section did not apply. If. it was intended to apply Section 214 of the Penal Code - then threat to murder must be in writing. There vva.s no such threat in writing. In any event the Primary Court and the District Court had no power to try a case for threat to murder. Further, from the record it appears that no written consent has been obtained from the Director of Public Prosecution asrequired to prosecute under Section 89(1)(b) of the Penal Code. This Court holds ... that the Appellant was improperly convicted by the Primary Court and the Revisional order by the District Court is bad in law for the aforesaia reasons. Accordingly, conviction quashed, sentence set aside. Appellant who is released on bail by this Court is also deemed to be released by virtue of this order as it is so ordered. Appeal allowed. SGD. JI!AVERI AG. JUDGE ••••••• •12.

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.

Penal Code Section 89(1)(b)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code Section 214

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.