WILLIAM CLEMENT V R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA

AT MWANZA CRIMANAL APPEAL NO 14300 OF 2023 (Appeal from the judgment of the District Court of Geita in criminal case No. 164/2021) WILLIAM CLEMENT @ THOMAS @ BENJAMIN............................ APPELLANT

VERSUS THE REPUBLIC............................................................................ RESPONDENT

RULING 25/7/2024 & 9/8/2024 ROBERT, J The appellant, William Clement @ Thomas @ Benjamin, was convicted by the Resident Magistrate Court of Geita for the offence of impregnating a schoolgirl contrary to section 60A (3) of the Education Act, Cap. 353 R.E.2002, as amended by Section 22 of the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act, No. 2 of 2016. He was sentenced to serve thirty (30) years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant preferred an appeal to this Court challenging the trial court's decision. However, before the appeal could be heard on its merits, Ms. Deodata Dotto, State Attorney representing the Republic, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the appeal is time-barred. Ms. Dotto submitted that the appellant had previously made an attempt to challenge the decision of the trial court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2022. However, that appeal was struck out for being filed out of time. Subsequently, the appellant filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 21 of 2023 seeking an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and an appeal out of time. This Court granted the application, allowing the appellant to file his appeal within fourteen days from the date of the order, which was made on 21st September 2023. Therefore, the deadline for filing the appeal was 4th October 2023. The State Attorney pointed out that the appellant filed this

appeal on 27th May 2024, which is more than eight months beyond the permitted time. Consequently, Ms. Dotto argued that the appeal is incompetent and should be dismissed for being filed out of time. On his part, the appellant contended that he did attempt to file his appeal within the prescribed time. However, he claimed that the appeal was returned to him by a Prison Officer, who informed him that the appeal was missing a Court order and thus could not be accepted by the Court. He 2 further stated that he continued to follow up on the matter at the prison admission office and was eventually informed that the Court had received the appeal, although he was uncertain of the exact date he received the Court order. The appellant prayed that his appeal be heard on its merits. In her rejoinder, Ms. Dotto argued that the appellant's explanation was not credible, as no Court order was attached to the appeal. She contended that the appellant was negligent in exercising his right to appeal within the prescribed time and that his appeal should be dismissed accordingly. The primary issue for determination is whether the appellant's appeal is time-barred and therefore incompetent. The timeline provided by the appellant and confirmed by the State Attorney is crucial. The appellant was granted leave to file his appeal within fourteen days from 21st September 2023, meaning the deadline was

4th October 2023. However, the appellant did not file the appeal until 27th May 2024, far beyond the extended deadline. Section 3(1) of the Law of Limitation Act mandates that any proceeding instituted after the prescribed period of limitation must be dismissed, whether or not limitation has been set up as a defense. Section 3(2) of the 3 same Act further clarifies that an appeal i^ instituted when a memorandum of appeal is filed. In this case, the appellant failed to file his appeal within the extended period granted by the Court. His explanation regarding the delay, specifically the claim that the appeal was returned by a Prison Officer due to a missing Court order, does not absolve him from the requirement to comply with the time limitation set by the Court. Furthermore, the absence of a Court order attached to the appeal weakens the appellant's argument and raises questions about the veracity of his claims. The Court is bound by the provisions of the Law of Limitation Act, which requires strict adherence to the prescribed time limits. In this case, the appellant's failure to file his appeal within the extended period renders the appeal incompetent. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds that the appellant's appeal is indeed time-barred and, therefore, incompetent. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the State Attorney is upheld. The appeal is hereby dismissed for being filed out of time. 4 It is so ordered. -st..

JUDGE 9/8/2024