director of public prosecution vs mathew mollel 2018 tzhc 2408 14 november 2018
- Citation
- director of public prosecution vs mathew mollel 2018 tzhc 2408 14 november 2018
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 14 November 2018
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 14 November 2018
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal is fatally defective due to improper entitlement of the notice of intention to appeal, as established by binding precedent.
Court disposition
appeal struck out
Orders
- The criminal appeal is struck out for being fatally defective.
02
Material facts
Parties
The Director of Public Prosecution
Appellant Counsel: Mr. MwaitendeMathew Mollel
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Koisenge03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether failure to entitle the notice of intention to appeal 'In the High Court' renders the appeal fatally defective
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The notice initiating the appeal was incorrectly entitled 'in the Resident Magistrate Court' instead of 'in the High Court' as required by section 392 of CPA.
- Respondent
- Concurred with the appellant that the notice was incorrectly entitled and agreed it renders the appeal defective.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
DPP Vs Sendi Wambura and others, Criminal Appeal No. 480/2016
Failure to entitle the notice of intention to appeal 'In the High Court' renders the criminal appeal fatally defective.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal is fatally defective due to improper entitlement of the notice of intention to appeal, as established by binding precedent.
Court disposition
appeal struck out
- The criminal appeal is struck out for being fatally defective.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 14 November 2018
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· 14 November 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (ARUSHA DISTRICT REGISTRY)
AT ARUSHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2018 (Original from Criminal Case No. 430 of 2017 in the Resident Magistrate Court of Arusha before Hon. G. A. Mwankuga RM) THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION ............ PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MATHEW MOLLEL RESPONDENT
RULING BEFORE: I. MAIGE. J The notice Initiating the appeal is entitled "in the Resident Magistrate Court" It would have been entitled in the High Court according to section 392 of CPA. Mr. Koisenge who appeared for the Respondent and Mr. Mwaitende for the Appellant have a concurrent view on that position. I entirely agree with them. In view of the recent decision of the court of Appeal in DPP Vs Sendi Wambura and others, Criminal Appeal No. 480/2016, failure to entitle the Notice of intention to appeal by the DPP, "In the High Court", renders the Criminal Appeal fatally defective. The appeal is th c (T
JUDGE 14/11/2018
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.