Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZCA

patric andrew vs the republic 1994 tzca 53 20 march 1994

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal is barred by statute as it concerns non-legal issues and the appellant pleaded guilty unequivocally; therefore, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed in its entirety

02

Material facts

Parties

Patrick Andrew

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence: years 5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the appeal against conviction and sentence for causing grievous harm is maintainable given the plea of guilty and statutory bar on appeals regarding severity of sentence

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant challenged the conviction and severity of sentence for causing grievous harm.
Respondent
Respondent relied on the appellant's unequivocal plea of guilty and statutory bar against appeals on non-legal issues including severity of sentence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 6(7)(a) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979

    Appeals on non-legal issues, including severity of sentence, are barred where the appellant pleaded guilty unequivocally.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal is barred by statute as it concerns non-legal issues and the appellant pleaded guilty unequivocally; therefore, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

  • appeal dismissed in its entirety

Source and reliance status

TZCA · 20 March 1994

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

TZCA

Judgment· 20 March 1994

patric andrew vs the republic 1994 tzca 53 20 march 1994

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OP TANZANIA

AT PAR US SALAAM (CORAM; MNZAVAS, J.A., MFALILA, J.A.. And LUBUVA. J .A .) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 1994

BETWEEN PATRICK ANDREW...................................APPELLANT AND THE REPUBLIC............................... ... . RESPONDENT (Appeal from "the decision o f "the Higfr Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) (Hapigano, J .) dated the 16th day o f June, 1993 in H/Court Criminal Appeal No# 68,..o f. .1223

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT MFALILA. J .A .t As a second appeal, th is appeal against the appellant's conviction fo r the offence o f Causing grievous harm contrary to Seotion 225 o f the penal Code and the sentence o f fiv e years imprisonment is oloarly without merit, one whioh would have been summarily dismissed undor the new le g is la tio n empowering th is Court to do so* At the t r ia l, the appellant entered a plea o f g u ilty and subsequently agreed to the corroctnces o f the facts as narrated "by the prosecutor# The facts revealed the oallous nature o f the eyo* vioious attack which resulted in the complainant losing an /4 * In our view nothing could "be more grievous# The t r ia l magistrate viewed the offonco in the same lig h t and sentonocd the appellant to fiv e yoars imprisonment# On f ir s t appeal to the High Court, that Court, (Mapigano» J «) summarily rojocrtod the appoal oonviction -undor Section 36O o f the Criminal Proooduro, Act eiroollanthad unequivooally pleaded g u ilty to tho, charge and . ^ tf«■ . - - .against tho sentonoo undor Sootion 364 (1 ) (a ) o f tho eamq f«on aooount o f tho soriousnoss o f tho injury in fliotod on tho v oomplaineat. Ihe appollant lodgod this furthor appoal* :x Socrtion 6 (7 ) (a ) of .tho Appolleto Jurisdiction Act 1979* bars appoals liko tho prosont to this Court on non logal isauog including sovority of sontonoo# As tho prosont appoal fa lls ■,e<iuwly Vithin tho provisions o f this Socrtion* it is 'ki'" k its oatiroty* EiXED at PitR ES SALAAM" this 28th day o f llarohf 1994« N.S. WZMdB

JUSTICE OF APISAL L*M» MFijLITiA * 3TICB OF mE&i D.Z. LUHJVA ' JUSTICE OF AFH5AE, I o ortify that this is a truo copy of* tho original* ( ) ;-vi; SE^OR^IIEHJTY^Ifflq^qSniflR^

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 225 of the Penal Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 364(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 6(7)(a) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979

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.