jackson so ole nemeteni ole saibul ndosi mjomba mjomba another vs the attorney general 2007 tzhc 197 13 july 2007

jackson so ole nemeteni ole saibul ndosi mjomba mjomba another vs the attorney general 2007 tzhc 197 13 july 2007

Section 148(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in relation to armed robbery, is violative of Article 15(2)(a) of the Constitution due to lack of procedural safeguards and arbitrariness, but is not struck down immediately; the government is given 18 months to rectify the defect. Section 9(3) does not violate Article 13(6)(a) as the current system provides sufficient opportunity for the accused to prepare a defence. Section 225(4) is not violative of Article 107A(2)(b) as non-compliance is an administrative issue, not a constitutional deficiency.

Citation
jackson so ole nemeteni ole saibul ndosi mjomba mjomba another vs the attorney general 2007 tzhc 197 13 july 2007
Parties
Petitioner: Jackson s/o Ole Nemeteni @ Ole Saibul @ Mdosi @ Mjomba Mjomba and 19 others; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Cause (constitutional Petition) / Judgment
Outcome
Petition partly allowed; declaratory and directive orders issued.
Legal Topics
Bail, Right to Fair Trial, Disclosure of Evidence, Delay in Criminal Trials, Interpretation of Statutes
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Bail Right to Fair Trial Disclosure of Evidence Delay in Criminal Trials Interpretation of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson s/o Ole Nemeteni @ Ole Saibul @ Mdosi @ Mjomba Mjomba and 19 others

Petitioner

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Cause (constitutional Petition) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of bail for armed robbery under section 148(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act violates Article 15(2)(a) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether section 9(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act restricting disclosure of prosecution witness statements violates Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether delays in trial contrary to section 225(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act violate Article 107A(2)(b) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Section 148(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in relation to armed robbery, is violative of Article 15(2)(a) of the Constitution due to lack of procedural safeguards and arbitrariness, but is not struck down immediately; the government is given 18 months to rectify the defect. Section 9(3) does not violate Article 13(6)(a) as the current system provides sufficient opportunity for the accused to prepare a defence. Section 225(4) is not violative of Article 107A(2)(b) as non-compliance is an administrative issue, not a constitutional deficiency.

Court Disposition

Petition partly allowed; declaratory and directive orders issued.

Orders

  • Section 148(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act is declared violative of Article 15(2)(a) of the Constitution in relation to armed robbery, but remains valid for 18 months from the date of judgment to allow the government to rectify the defect.
  • The government is directed to amend the definition of armed robbery and establish a procedure prescribed by law for denial of bail in such cases within 18 months.