NGOTIETI KOKOYO VS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

IN THE SUB REGISTY OF ARUSHA

AT ARUSHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9980 OF 2024 (Originating from compounding order made under Section 116 of the Wildlife Conservation Act, Cap 283 R.E 2022 by Ngorongoro Conservation Are Authority on behalf of the Director of Wildlife dated 6th April, 2024) NGOTIETI KOKOYO........................................................ APPELLANT

VERSUS NGORONGORO CONSERVATION AREA AUTHORITY.......... 1st RESPONDENT THE DIRECTOR OF WILDLIFE............................................ 2nd RESPONDENT THE REPUBLIC................................................................... 3rd RESPONDENT

RULING 19th September & 31st October,2024 KAINDA, J.: The appellant, Ngotieti Kokoyo was aggrieved by the compounding order and sentence handed by Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority. He filed an appeal to this Court challenging the order advancing two set of Petition of appeal. In the first set which was filed on 6th May, 2024, the appellant's complaint is based on the following two grounds; 1. That, Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority erred in charging and convicting the appellant for allegedly entry of livestock in Ngorongoro Conservation Area the offence that does not exist in law.

2. That, the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority erred in law in exercising powers to enter compounding decision under the Wildlife Conservation Act, [Cap 283. R.E. 2022] exclusively vested in the Director of Wildlife under the Wildlife Conservation Act. In the additional ground of appeal filed on 4th September, 2024, the appellants complaint is to the effect that; 1. the first respondent erred in law by compounding and sentencing the appellant to pay compounding fine without complying with the requirement ofprocedural law on compounding hence the compounding is illegal and unforeseeable. Consequently, the appellant prayed for the court to grant the following reliefs; 1. Allow the appeal in its entirety by quashing and setting aside the decision and sentence met by the applicant.

2. Declare that there is no offence of grazing livestock within the Ngorongoro Conservation Area.

3. That, Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority exceeded its mandate in compounding offences under the Wildlife Conservation Act within Ngorongoro Conservation Area, such mandate exclusively mandated for the Director of Wildlife as established under the Wildlife Conservation Act, [Cap 283 R.E. 2022]. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was represented by Mr. Yonas Masiaya and Mr. Denis Moses, learned advocates from Grade Attorneys & Legal Consultants. On the other hand, the respondent was represented by Ms. Amina Kiango, learned State Attorney. Before the matter could take off, I asked the parties to address me on the propriety of the matter before the court on the fact that the petition of appeal was not accompanied by the order or sentence subject of the appeal. Mr. Masiaya argued that the appeal was tenable because the appellant was required to pay a fine, and he paid Tanzania Shillings One Million One hundred and Eighty Thousand (TZS. 1,180,000/=). A payment receipt dated 6th April, 2024 issued to that effect was annexed to the petiton of appeal. The learned counsel submitted further that, as per receipt, the offence was identified as grazing in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Contrary to Section 116 of the Wildlife Conservation Act, No. 5 of 2009. The learned counsel argued that, the appellant was aggrieved with the sentence and he has appealed to this court on

the authority of the provision of Section 116 (5). The appeal is accompanied by the payment receipt which is the only document supplied to the appellant. On the other hand, Ms. Kiango had same position that the appeal was competent before this court. She submitted that a person aggrieved by compounding order can appeal to this court and the appeal has to be against order, sentence or finding. She further argued that in this appeal, the annexed receipt is equal to sentence. From the submission made by the parties in regard to the competence of the appeal before the court, the issue for determination is whether or not, the annexed receipt to the petition of appeal is an order, or finding or sentence in terms of 359 (1) of the CPA which deals with appeals generally. It provides for any person aggrieved by the any finding, sentence or order made or passed by a subordinate court to appeal to the High court. Section 362 provide for a requirement that every appeal to be accompanied by a copy of the proceedings, judgement or order appealed against. It provides; 362. -(1) Every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his advocate, and every petition shall, unless the High Court otherwise directs, be accompanied by a copy of the proceedings judgment or order appealed against. (2) The petition shall contain particulars of the matters of law

or of fact in regard to which the subordinate court appealed from is alleged to have erred. Now, applying the above provisions to the matter at hand, it is quite clear that the petition of appeal is not accompanied by a copy of proceedings, Judgement or order appealed against so that the court to be able to decide on matters of law or fact in regard to alleged error. The annexed payment receipt cannot, in all four corners, help this court to decide on the alleged error. For instance, the appellant prayed for the court to make a declaratory order that; there is no offence of grazing livestock within Ngorongoro Conservation Area, or an order that; the first respondent has no powers to compound offences established under the Wildlife Conservation Act, [Cap 283 R.E 2022]; an order that, the amount of money paid by the appellant as compounding fee to the first respondent contrary to law be refunded to the appellant; an order that, it was an error on the part of the first respondent for his act of compounding and sentencing the appellant to pay compounding fine without complying with the requirement of procedural law on compounding. It is my finding that the record made available to this court, which is a payment receipt, cannot, in itself enable this court to be on the better side to decide as to whether the appeal has merit or not. To that end, and for reasons explained above, I find the appeal incompetent and is hereby struck out. Given the circumstances of this appeal, I make no order as to costs. It is so ordered. S.J. KAINDA —

JUDGE 31.10.2024