Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

muhuli so jibunge vs republic 2013 tzhc 2123 22 march 2013

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the applicant has already served eighteen years imprisonment and the original record is missing, an order for retrial would not serve the best interests of justice. The conviction and sentence are quashed and set aside.

Court disposition

Application for revision allowed; conviction and sentence quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • Immediate release from prison of Muhuli Jibunge and Njile Mayinga unless held on other lawful charges
  • Right of appeal explained

02

Material facts

Parties

Muhuli Jibunge

Applicant

Njile Mayinga

Co Accused

The Republic

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Nestory Paschal

Amounts and remedies

  • Imprisonment Served: 18
  • Original Sentence (years): 30
  • Compensation Ordered: TZS 803,400

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant argued delay in appeal was due to failure to obtain a copy of the judgment; original record from Meatu District Court could not be traced.
Respondent
No specific argument from respondent recorded; State Attorney present.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Trite law

    When the original record goes missing, the matter should be ordered to be re-heard.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the applicant has already served eighteen years imprisonment and the original record is missing, an order for retrial would not serve the best interests of justice. The conviction and sentence are quashed and set aside.

Court disposition

Application for revision allowed; conviction and sentence quashed and set aside.

  • Immediate release from prison of Muhuli Jibunge and Njile Mayinga unless held on other lawful charges
  • Right of appeal explained

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 22 March 2013

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· 22 March 2013

muhuli so jibunge vs republic 2013 tzhc 2123 22 march 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT TABORA

APPELLANTE JURISDICTION MISC.APPL NO. 17 CF 18 OF 2000 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8 OF 1993

OF MEATU DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT

AT MEATU BEFORE: M.R.MLAWA Esq DISTRICT RESIDENT MAGISTRATE MUHULI S/O JIBUNGE........................................APPELLANT (Original Accused)

VERSUS THE REPUBLIC...................................................RESPONDENT (Original prosecutor)

RULING The applicant Muhuli Jibunge and Njile Mayinga were on 1/3/94 convicted by Meatu District Court on. a charge of Robbery with violence contrary to section 285 and 286 of the penal Code and each sentenced to served thirty years imprisonment and twelve strokes of the cane. They were also ordered to pay compensation of Shs 803,400/= to the victim. The applicant was aggrieved, and he realized that he was time barred to lodge an appeal. l The reason for delay was a failure to obtain a copy of Judgment from Meatu District Court. So far the original record from the Meatu District Court could not be traced. The applicant has s6 far served eighteen years imprisonment. It is trite law that when the original record goes missing the matter should be ordered to be re-heard. In the instant case, an order for retrial will not serve the best interests of justice, given the fact that the applicant has already served eighteen years imprisonment. I therefore by way of revision quash the Judgment and set aside the sentence imposed on the applicant and his co-accused. I therefore order an immediate release from prison of the applicant MUHULI JIBUNGE and NJILE MAYINGA unless held therein and other lawful charges. 2 Order accordingly.

JUDGE 22//5/2013 Date: 22/5/2013 Coram: Hon. S.B. Lukqlelwa, Judge 1st Applicant: Present 2nd Applicant: Absent Respondent: Mr.Nestory Paschal -State Attorney Who is present. B/Clerk: Mary Mpululu Order: Ruling delivered in Court this 22nd May, 2013 Right of appeal explained. 22/3/2013

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.

Section 285 of the Penal Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 286 of the Penal Code

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.