199504NA TZCA Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 199504NA TZCA Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 1 January 1995
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 1 January 1995
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
No point of law was found to warrant consideration on second appeal; therefore, the appeal is summarily rejected.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal summarily rejected as provided under section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
02
Material facts
Parties
Murdih Kapuhi
AppellantThe Republic
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Per Count: years 5
- Number of Counts: 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether there exists a point of law for consideration on second appeal under section 6(7)(a) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appeal is directed against the whole decision of the High Court.
- Respondent
- No specific argument from respondent recorded.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Appellate Jurisdiction Act, section 6(7)(a)
Second appeals are limited to points of law as required under section 6(7)(a) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
No point of law was found to warrant consideration on second appeal; therefore, the appeal is summarily rejected.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
- Appeal summarily rejected as provided under section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
Source and reliance status
TZCA · 1 January 1995
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· 1 January 1995
IN Tfil1 COURT OF .A.?.F.J:i.L OF TANZANIA J..,T DATI. .JS SiiLlJiM CJ.TIIJ1'TJ.J, 1'..??ElJ. no. 110 OF 1993 13E'l'd11clN lTIJRDIH KAl'UHI •• C ~ 0 0 o o Q o o ,, 0 • n O •• • A.PPELLAliT .tJID TEE REPtJBLIC PJJSJ:'OUDENT (:i.ppaal from tho Judgement of the Hig"'.:l Oom~t ::if Tanzania at Dar es SaJ.a.am) d.a.ted. the (-t.ll day o:f June, 1992 jn lT'IliLJJ.,I 2 C.J .. : 'Th.is is a second appeal. by the appellant NUP..T:rn K!-:..YUi:IT. He was oha..rgod and convicted in the District Court for lli:..f'iji District at Utete on three counts for the offences of Malting False D~cument1 Uttering a False' Document and Soliciting the commission of a."Yl offence, all under the Penal· Code, and was sontenced to 5 years in jail en ea.oh of tho first cll'ld second counts, and 5 years i..n jail on the third cind last count. The sentences wore I directed to Tl.ID concurrently. His first appeal to tho I:Iigh C.urt at Dar es Salaam· ;.~. was dismissed in its ontirGty. According to appellant's l'fotice of Appeal, it is appa.ront • j,. ... that the appeal is directed against the 1'1holc decision of the ,. •i·· ',• ... j High Court. We b.:1vc therefore carGfully oxamin0d tho whole r0cord of the proooodings in both th0 triaJ. District Court and the lligh • ~:Jia Court to see if there could be a poi.rit 'of law for oonsid0ra.tion by this. aaurt in a:· eooo:nd a.ppcaJ. as .required under section 6
(7) (a) "' ' •·. . . ,,r,· . ·\ ' , 2 of tho li.ppella'ta J"urisdiotign Ao4t, 'f91(• as am1mded by Aot Ho. 16 of 1984, but we b.avo fe.ilcd to find any such Pt'int of la!r• -~ .... W~ a.re thus of the. ~ ~ ~ O l l that 'this a.ppaal •ught to ' bo mid is h0roby surmna.Tily rajectocl as :providod 1.lhder sootion 4 ~ ~ .A:Ppollat.,o J''Urlsd.i,c,iti,on Act, . . 1979 a.a a,mQndod 'b~ A.at 'Ni,. 17 0 1::;_:, ~,.~~M- "'~ l ..... o~ _199~., vfo further di:roo~_ .. WGJ.l. as too n~::ti•..P. ha .lQti:f'iod ~ . . W -1.t' giJ.,. · 499~ F • L. :+IT.ALAL! CHIEF JUSTIQ!......... L. M. MFllLIL...\ JUSTICE OF APPID.tct.J
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.