MOHAMED ASHEWE PANGANI
The appeal was filed 9 days out of time without sufficient cause; the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred appeal and must strike it out.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- MOHAMED ASHEWE PANGANI
- Parties
- Appellant: Mohamed Ashewe @ Pangani; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Preliminary Objection on Limitation
- Outcome
- appeal struck out as time barred
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Period for Appeal, Jurisdiction, Extension of Time
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mohamed Ashewe @ Pangani
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Preliminary Objection on Limitation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal is time barred under section 361(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was filed 9 days out of time without sufficient cause; the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred appeal and must strike it out.
Court Disposition
appeal struck out as time barred
Orders
- The appeal is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT SONGEA DC. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 000026456 OF 2024 MOHAMED ASHEWE @ PANGANI .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING KARAYEMAHA, J When this appeal has been called for hearing today (17/2/2025), Mr. Issa Chiputula, for the respondent, has risen and addressed this court that this appeal is time barred. He states that it was filed after the expiry of 45 days since the impugned judgment was handed down on 4/7/2024. The present appeal was filed on 27/8/2024, he asserted. He submitted that the appeal was to be filed by 18/8/2024. He has submitted that by that delay the appellant violated section 361(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [Cap. 20 R.E 2022] (the CPA). He has urged this court to strike it out. On his party, the appellant has casted blames on the prison administration office claiming that he prepared his grounds timely but the same was filed belatedly by the former. I have considered the rival arguments, the record and grounds of appeal. This court is called upon to answer the issue whether this appeal is time barred. Indisputably, this matter commenced in the District Court of Namtumbo where the appellant was arraigned thereat for committing the offences of rape contrary to section 130(1), (2) (e) and section 131(1) (3) of the Penal Code and for Abduction contrary to Section 133 of the Penal Code [Cap 16 RE 2022]. He was sentenced to serve thirty (30) years in jail for the first count and to serve seven (7) years in jail for the second count. He is aggrieved and wishes to assail the decision. Having handed down the judgment on 4/7/2024, the appellant was required under section 361(1)(b) of the CPA to appeal within 45 days. Mr. Chiptula argues that by filing the grounds of appeal on 27/8/2024, the appellant created a gap of 9 days delay but advanced no reasons. More so, the digital criminal file, shows that this appeal was admitted on 15/9/2024. Whatever the case, the appellant was late to file his grounds of appeal. The complaints that the prison officers filed the grounds belatedly cannot endow jurisdiction to this court. I agree with Mr. Chiputula that the only way forward is to strike out this appeal. At his liberty the appellant can move this court to order extension of time within which to file grounds of appeal out of time. Page. 1 Hon.. JAMES KARAYEMAHA To cum it all, this appeal is time barred and it is struck out. It is so ordered. Dated at SONGEA this 17th of February 2025 . J. M KARAYEMAHA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 2 Hon.. JAMES KARAYEMAHA