WANCHARA MARWA RULING

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (JUDICIARY) THE HIGH COURT (MUSOMA SUB REGISTRY AT MUSOMA) Misc. CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 27182 OF 2024 (Arising from the District Court of Serengeti at Serengeti in Economic Case No. 65 of2023) WANCHARA MARWA @ KITURETI....................................... APPLICANT Versus THE REPUBLIC........................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 10.03.2025 & 10.03.2025 Mtulya, J.: The applicant in the present application, Mr. Wanchara Marwa @ Kitureti, has approached this court under section 361 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap. 20 R.E. 202] (the Act) seeking for an order on enlargement of time to prefer an appeal out of time. The applicant was prosecuted and found guilty in Economic Case No. 65 of 2023 (the case) resolved by the District Court of Serengeti at Serengeti (the district court) for wildlife offences and was sentenced to nineteen (19) years imprisonment. The applicant was aggrieved by the decision and intends to protest at this court. However, he found himself out of time due to delay of the district court to supply him the copies of proceedings and judgment within time. In his affidavit in support of the application and submission in this court, the applicant alleged to have received the copies when the time to lodge an appeal was already elapsed and was in prison custody. The reason of delay was not protested by Ms. Agma Haule, learned State Attorney, who had appeared for the respondent. According to her, i the applicant's affidavit in the second and third paragraphs display the reason of delay caused by the court hence the applicant cannot be blamed for issues beyond his means, and in any case he wants to enjoy the right to heard at this court. The cited law by the applicant in section 361 (2) of the Act regulates enlargement of time to lodge actions out of time in this court. However, applicants must produce good reasons to persuade this court to decide in their favour. The practice on the subject shows that the mandate of this court is discretionary depending on the circumstances of each particular case (see: Robert Wambura @ Mungine v. Republic, Misc. Criminal Application No. 44 of 2022; Samwel Sichone v. Bulebe Hamis, Civil Application No. 8 of 2015; and Republic v. Ramadhani Mohamed Chambali, Criminal Sessions Case No. 11 of 2020). In the instant application, the applicant has produced two (2) reasons of delay, namely: first, delay of the district court in supplying him copies of judgment and proceedings of the case; and second, he was in prison custody and conditions were not favourable in following the copies. The indicated two (2) reasons were appreciated by Ms. Haule. The practice in this court and Court of Appeal has been that applicants in prisons authorities may be given special consideration in their application for enlargement of time to prefer actions out of time in this court (see: Otieno Obute v. The Republic, Criminal Application No.l of 2011 and Yusufu Hassan v. Republic, Criminal Application No. 50/12 of 2017). 4 This court has been following the course, unless there are good reasons to depart from the practice (see: Mtatiro Macha Chacha v. 2 Republic, Criminal Application No. 19730 of 2024; Gasaya Bwana @ Chacha v. Republic, Misc. Criminal Application No. 22 of 2022; and Juma Moroka Masyora v. Republic, Misc. Criminal Application No. 23 of 2022). The thinking of the Court of Appeal, which this court appreciates is that: prisoners are not free agents who can freely make follow-ups on their matters hence granting applications for enlargement of time is an obvious issue (see: Yusufu Hassan v. Republic (supra) and Otieno Obute v. The Republic (supra). It has been learned that: as prisoners, their rights and responsibilities are restricted. Therefore, they cannot do what they want to do. They may have been let down by reasons beyond their available means. Having this position at hand, I am persuaded to believe that the applicant had faced similar scenario hence I grant him ten (10) days leave to lodge a notice of intention to appeal and forty-five (45) days to prefer the intended appeal in this court. The applicant must do so from This Ruling was delivered in chambers under the seal of this court in the presence of the applicant, Mr. Wanchara Marwa Kitureti and in the presence of Ms. Agma Haule, learned State Attorney for the Republic. Judge 10.03.2025 3