republic vs elifaison so mmary another 2006 tzhc 213 29 june 2006
- Citation
- republic vs elifaison so mmary another 2006 tzhc 213 29 june 2006
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 29 June 2006
- Posture
- Criminal Session Case / Application for Withdrawal of Charges (nolle Prosequi) Before Trial
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 29 June 2006
- Posture
- Criminal Session Case / Application for Withdrawal of Charges (nolle Prosequi) Before Trial
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Upon the Director of Public Prosecutions entering a Nolle Prosequi under Section 91(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1985, the court is required to discharge the accused in respect of the charges withdrawn, but such discharge does not bar subsequent proceedings on the same facts.
Court disposition
Accused discharged; charges withdrawn by Nolle Prosequi.
Orders
- 1st and 2nd accused persons discharged in respect of the information of murder c/s 196 of the Penal Code.
- 1st and 2nd accused persons to be released from custody forthwith.
- Discharge does not bar subsequent proceedings on the same facts.
02
Material facts
Parties
Republic
Prosecution Counsel: Mr. Maugo, State AttorneyElifaison s/o Mmary
1st Accused Counsel: Mr. Sandi, AdvocateGoodluck Kanea
2nd Accused Counsel: Mr. Lumambo, Advocate03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Session Case / Application for Withdrawal of Charges (nolle Prosequi) Before Trial
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the prosecution should be permitted to withdraw the information of murder against the accused under Section 91(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1985
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Director of Public Prosecutions, through the State Attorney, notified the court of the intention to withdraw the information of murder against both accused by entering a Nolle Prosequi under Section 91(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1985.
- Respondent
- Counsel for both accused persons had no objection to the prayer for withdrawal of the information by the prosecution.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 91(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1985
The Director of Public Prosecutions may enter a Nolle Prosequi to discontinue proceedings against an accused at any stage before judgment is delivered.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Upon the Director of Public Prosecutions entering a Nolle Prosequi under Section 91(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1985, the court is required to discharge the accused in respect of the charges withdrawn, but such discharge does not bar subsequent proceedings on the same facts.
Obiter and limits
- The discharge of the accused persons does not operate as a bar to any subsequent proceedings against them on account of the same facts.
Court disposition
Accused discharged; charges withdrawn by Nolle Prosequi.
- 1st and 2nd accused persons discharged in respect of the information of murder c/s 196 of the Penal Code.
- 1st and 2nd accused persons to be released from custody forthwith.
- Discharge does not bar subsequent proceedings on the same facts.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 29 June 2006
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.
TZHC
Judgment· 29 June 2006
Hi T7T3 HI3H COURT OF TANZANIA
AT MOSHI CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 9 OP 200*+ T:r-' REPUBLIC V3S 1. ELIFAISON S/O MMARY 2. GOQDLUCK KAN£A Date: 29/6/2006 Coram: F.A.B. Jundu, J. For Republic; Mr. Maugo, State Attorney For 1st Accused: Mr. Sandi, Advocate For 2nd Accused: Hr. Lumambo, Advocate Accused:- 1st: present and under custody 2nd: present and under custody C/C:- Matiku Information of Murder c/s 196 of the PenalCode is read over andexplained to the accused persons in their own languageandthey arerequared to plead,thereto Accused's Plea: 1st Accused: It is not true 2nd Accused: It is not true. Court:- Entered as a plea of not guilty. F.A.a. JUNDU, ' , judgtc 29/6/2006 Mr. Maugo;- My Lord, the Director of Public prosecutions on behalf of the Republic notifies this court that he no longer wishes to prosecute the information of murder against the 1st and 2nd Accused persons, he pray3 to withdraw the information by entering ,\Tolle Prosequi under Section 91 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, I985» Mr. Sandi:- My Lord, I have no objection to the prayer made by the learned State Attorney for the D.P.P. Mr. Lumambo:- My Lord, on behalf the 2nd Accused person in this case, we have no objection to the prayer made by the learned state Attorney for the D.P.P. Order:- Upon the Director of public Prosecutions entering fJolle Prosequi in respect of the information of murder charged against the 1st and 2nd Accused
persons as duly notified to this court vide the learned State Attorney under Section 91(1) of the Criminal procedure Act No. 9 of I985t I hereby at once discharge the 1st and 2nd Accused persons in respect of the information of murder c/s 196 of the Penal Coie which they were charged with and for which the Director of Public Prosecutions has entered Nolle Prosequi# I further hereby order that the 1st and 2nd Accused persons be released from custody (prison) forthwith* However, this discharged of the 1st and 2nd Accused persons shall not operate as a bar to any subsequent proceedings against each of them on account of the sa-ne facts* It is so ordered. ~» F.A.R. JUNDU JUD-33, 29/6/2006
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.