N
- Citation
- N
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 1 January 1984
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 1 January 1984
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
AppellantThe United Republic
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the charge under Section 89(1)(b) of the Penal Code was valid
- 02
Whether the courts had jurisdiction to try the offence
- 03
Whether prosecutorial consent was obtained
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 02
Penal Code, Section 214
Threat to murder under Section 214 of the Penal Code must be in writing.
- 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.
TZHC
Judgment· 1 January 1984
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.
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.