20141024 TZCA Mbeya
- Citation
- 20141024 TZCA Mbeya
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 24 October 2014
- Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 24 October 2014
- Posture
- Criminal Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application is incompetent because the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to revise its own decisions under Rule 65, and the applicant cited the wrong enabling provision. The application is struck out.
Court disposition
Application struck out as incompetent
Orders
- The application is struck out
02
Material facts
Parties
Mashaka s/o Lameck
ApplicantThe Republic
Respondent Counsel: Ms. Catherine Gwaltu03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to revise its own decision under Rule 65 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009
- 02
Whether the application is competent given the cited enabling provision
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant, being a layman, pleaded with the Court to hear his application, arguing that the impugned decision was pregnant with errors.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to revise its own decision under Rule 65, and that the application was incompetent for citing the wrong enabling provision.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 65 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009; section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to revise proceedings of the High Court, not its own decisions, under Rule 65 and section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
- 02
Rule 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009
Applications for review of the Court's own decisions must be brought under Rule 66.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application is incompetent because the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to revise its own decisions under Rule 65, and the applicant cited the wrong enabling provision. The application is struck out.
Court disposition
Application struck out as incompetent
- The application is struck out
Source and reliance status
TZCA · 24 October 2014
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· 24 October 2014
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA
AT MBEYA (CORAM: KILEO. J.A .• MJASIRI. J.A. And MASSATI. J.A.) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 4 OF 2014 MASHAKA S/0 LAMECK ...............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ................................................................RESPONDENT (Application for Revision from the judgn1ent of the High Court of Tanzania at Mbeya) (Othman-CJ. Rutakangwal .. Mandi J.) dated the 23 rd day of May, 2014 in In Criminal Appeal No 251 of 2011
RULING OF THE COURT th 24 day of October,2014 MASSATI. J.A.: The applicant has moved this Court to revise its own decision dated 23 rd May, 2014 in Criminal Appeal No 251/2011. The Notice of Motion was filed under Rule 65(1) (2) ·(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009 (the Rules). When the application came up for hearing, Ms.Catherine Gwaltu, learned State Attorney, rose to argue a preliminary objection on a point of law, notice of which she had filed earlier. Her point was that the Court had no jurisdiction to revise its own decision which is the import of Rule 65. The applicant, being a layman, just pleaded with the Court to hear his application, as the impugned decision was pregnant with errors We agree with Ms. Gwaltu that Rule 65 cited in support of the application governs institution of revisions. Read together with section 4 (3) of the Appellate 1 Jurisdiction Act, this Court has jurisdiction to revise proceedings of the High Court not its own. If, gathering from the contents of the Notice of Motion, the applicant meant to apply for review, then the proper provision was Rule 66. So, even in the case of review the application is incompetent for citing the wrong enabling provision. This means that the application is incompetent either way. It only deserves to be struck out, as we hereby do. DATED at MBEYA this 24th day of October, 2014. E. A. KILEO
JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. MJASIRI
JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. A. MASSATI <l.J , -~ ::J JUSTICE OF APPEAL ~-Jf~h I certi at this is a true copy of the original. P. ~ K Y A
SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR
COURT OF APPEAL 2
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.