jarome hamedeus vs republic 2009 tzca 45 28 october 2009
- Citation
- jarome hamedeus vs republic 2009 tzca 45 28 october 2009
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 28 October 2009
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 28 October 2009
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's whereabouts were unknown, he had not prosecuted the appeal after release from prison, and indefinite adjournment was not in the interest of justice.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed with liberty to restore
Orders
- Appeal dismissed under Rule 3(2)(a) of the Rules
- Liberty to appellant to restore the appeal if he wishes
02
Material facts
Parties
Jarome Hamedus
Appellant Counsel: Mr. Zakayo NjulumiThe Republic
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Faraja NchimbiAmounts and remedies
- Fine for First Count: TZS 80,000
- Fine for Second Count: TZS 75,000
- Imprisonment in Default (per Count): year 1
- High Court Imposed Imprisonment (consecutive Terms): years 2
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the appellant's absence and failure to prosecute
Party arguments
- Applicant
- No argument presented as appellant was absent and had not followed up the appeal.
- Respondent
- State Attorney submitted that the appeal should be dismissed with liberty to restore if the appellant wishes.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 3(2)(a) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 1979
An appeal may be dismissed where the appellant cannot be traced and has not prosecuted the appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's whereabouts were unknown, he had not prosecuted the appeal after release from prison, and indefinite adjournment was not in the interest of justice.
Obiter and limits
- Liberty is granted to the appellant to restore the appeal if he wishes to do so.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed with liberty to restore
- Appeal dismissed under Rule 3(2)(a) of the Rules
- Liberty to appellant to restore the appeal if he wishes
Source and reliance status
TZCA · 28 October 2009
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· 28 October 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA
AT DODOMA (CORAM: MSOFFE. 3.A.. RUTAKANGWA. 3.A.. And BWANA. 3.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 478 OF 2007 3AROME HAMEDEUS.................................................................. APPELLANT
VERSUS THE REPUBLIC........................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Decision High Court of Tanzania at Dodoma) (Masanche, 3.) dated the 3rd day of April, 2007 in Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2006
ORDER OF THE COURT MSOFFE, 3.A.: The District Court of Mpwapwa (Raphael, SDM) convicted the appellant of two counts of causing death through dangerous driving contrary to Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act No. 30 of 1973. He was sentenced to pay fines of shs. 80,000/= and shs. 75,000/= or one year imprisonment in default in the two respective counts. In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction the High Court (Masanche, 1 ) set aside the sentences and sentenced the appellant to consecutive terms of two years imprisonment. That was on 3/4/2007 in the absence of the appellant. The judge made a further order for the copy of the Revisional Order to be given to the Principal State Attorney, Dodoma with directions to ensure that the appellant was arrested and committed to prison. From the information availed to us the appellant was arrested and committed to prison on 26/6/2007. The following day, i.e. on 27/6/2007, he lodged a notice of appeal against the decision of Masanche, J. The address of service given in the said notice was that of Mr. Njulumi & Co. Advocates. Although under Rule 61 (1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 1979, hereinafter the Rules, a notice of appeal has to be given within fourteen days of the date of the decision, technically in this matter the notice of appeal was given within time because it was not until 26/6/2007 when the appellant knew of the
decision. In this regard, the notice instituted the appeal as per the above sub-rule. From the available record, there is no evidence that the Registrar ever served the appellant with the record of appeal. In this context, in terms of Rule 65 (1) of the Rules there was no way the appellant could have lodged a memorandum of appeal within fourteen days because he is yet to be served with a record of appeal. 2 At the hearing of the appeal it transpired that the appellant was released from prison on Presidential pardon on 9/12/2008. This information was relayed to the Court vide letter Ref. No. 112/DO/5/11/84 dated 26/10/2009 from the Prison Officer, Msalato Prison. In the meantime, efforts at tracing the appellant for service on him of the notice of the date of hearing were made but they ended up being an exercise in futility. His whereabouts are unknown. At the same time, Mr. Zakayo Njulumi, learned advocate, wrote a letter to the Court to say that his instructions were to prepare the notice of appeal only. It is also evident from the information made available to us that after the release the appellant has never followed up the conduct of the appeal. At the hearing of the appeal we appraised Mr. Faraja Nchimbi, learned State Attorney for the respondent Republic, of the above background information and accordingly invited him to address us on what step he thought would be best
for us to take in the matter. Without hesitation, he was of the view that we dismiss the appeal with liberty to the appellant to restore it, if he will wish to do so in future. With respect, we agree with him. It occurs to us that an adjournment will not serve any useful purpose. We are saying so because since the whereabouts of the appellant are not known it is not certain that he will ever be available for service. At the same time we are also anxious that the appeal should not remain pending indefinitely. For the above reasons, we hereby invoke the provisions of Rule 3 (2) (a) of the Rules and accordingly dismiss the appeal with liberty to the appellant to restore it if he will wish to do so. DATED at DODOMA this 28th day of October, 2009. J. H. MSOFFE
JUSTICE OF APPEAL E.M.K. RUTAKANGWA
JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. J. BWANA
JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. (Z. A. MARUMA)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
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.