19890620 TZHC Dar es Salaam2

IN ''i'EE EIGE CffURT OF TAHZAIJIA ~ AT DAR ,_ _____ ______ii::S .......,,.._., GAU.AM ... ~ APPELLATE JURISDICTION ,J. • 1 ~. ... -. HIGH.COURT CRII1IiJi~L APPEilL HO. 106 j c/£. Ci..i1:iinal bppeal Ho. 107 of 1988 OF 1988 -"" l: Ori"ginal Crir,,inal Case Ho. 89 o-£ 1986 of the DISTRICT COURT. OF BAG.AEOYO DIS'I'P...IC'I' AT BAG.A1'-'iOYO "t· .. B~f'oz-e: K. o. Mohamed, Esq., Senior . Disti~ict 1'-iagicitrate MUSTAFA RAJ.Airu HYOI\A & ilHOTI-:lER • • • • • • ·• APPELLli.lTTS: (Original Aoouoed) verous ·TIIE UlUTED REFJ3LIC • • • • • • •• • • • . ... l:1ESPCHDE1TT (Original Prooecutor) tn-ieh this appeal came up fol... hearing. on 16/6/89 1 Chizu, S.A.~, repreGenting the reopondent, raised a preliminary objec-wf.on. He submitted that tnio 8ppeal should be dismissed on tne ~oi.ll4<l that it is timebarred. ~he learned State Attorney said that the appeal was. timc-bai"red becc.1uce it was :filed after 88 dayo ( had elapsed f'rom tho time the appellant received judgr:1ent ·copy. '\. T.he learned State .AtJcot,.oy aubmit·l;cd that such n delay af':tc:ided. s. 361 (b) ·of' c. P. A., w:-tlch stipulates that a appeal is to filed within 45 doya f'ro:n the da·te o:f :finding, sentence or order to be appealed against. Of course, .thio time excludes the time t.cll:en to get the juo.g,.;;ent copy. In reply,' the t·uo c.ppolla-'1.ts stated that they delayed to get the judgment copy tLat is why ·(;hey did no-=t f'iie ·their appeal: within 45 duys. The record showo that the appellants received judg-C1ent copy on 18/3/88 a."1.d ti1.e:.."cn:fter tI-rny :tiled their appeal. on 14/6/88. · Thia wc.s 88 days :from the. ti:::10 the apl?ellant received the judgment copy. This, t::wrofore, r.mans that the appel1antG dcl.ayed. to file_ .their appeal: within 45 clays a:fter they haci. got the judgment copy. i,nd., ther~fore, i t is not true that , their delay was caused 07 :fail~ro· to got judgment copy in, time. ... 2 T'na appellan.ta-...were supposed to file ·an application for l..eave to :til.o their appea1 out oZ ti1:1e:. They did not do so •. Tl·.dn be:L.'11.g the case, th_eref'orc, thiz appeal., wnicn was filed after 4;5 days .n.aa. e x· ~ . ... ir.,e-b ar:.:-ec.' 2,11d as. such, :it is., hereby; disr.tlssed . pirea., is .J..•,i as being incompetent. The 1earned State J;. ttorney, on behalf of the RapubJ.io., anlced .this court to.en..~ence the sentence impo6ed upon the appellant on the ground thc:d; i i was too .l.i1:1ient. But ho otated so thiriking that the sen-:,enoe impos:cd upon the two appelJ.~-i1;s was of ·two (2)°.years~ In reply the two appellants stated -lin.at the se:ntei'J.oe imposed upon _ti1em by the lower court was o:t :five (5) years. I.find that the sentence of· five (5)years imposed upon the ~ t s was. adequate• I ,·rill• therefore, not interf'ere . ·w;i,,.th it •. I. H. M~ MAGESA J=•R•l'~,.. (Ext..!.._J •l 20/6/1989 Ruling read in open court in the p~esenc0 of' the ·appellants and in the present of' Hiss Buzuru :for the :aepublic, C t..:.us 20tl:\ day of June, 1989. .I. He. M. i~GESA P.R.M. Ext. ~L'1 20 6 1989 Certified true. copy of' the orii-L,e,1. I I . .:}~ . ____ .....................,.._,._ ·-DEPUTY 1~GISTRAR .