20100312 TZCA Tanga

_'J:y· . '. . ~ 11,. ~

I

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA

ATTANGA CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2009 i I ZUBER! ABDALLAH AND ANOTHER............................ I ' APPLICANT Versus 1 I THE REPUBLIC ................................ l.................... RESPONDENT ' I I (Appli_cation for extension of time to file review,from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Tanga) I (Msoffe, J.A., Kileo., J.A., And I Kalegeya, J~A.,) . · Dated the 10th day of July, 2007 In . 1 Criminal Appeal no. 131 of 2005 , •••••••••••••••••••

I

RULING 12 March, 2010 KIMARO, J.A: Before me is an application seeking for extension of time to file a I I review of the judgment of the Court delivered on 10th July,_ 2007. The I I notice of motion does not cite the enabling provision of the law and it is ! supported by a joint affidavit affirmed by :both applicants. ! i I j j I, At the hearing of the application they appeared in pe,rson and they requested the Court to grant the application on the basis of the documents they filed in Court. Mr. Tumaini Kweka, learned State Attorney app¢aring for the respondent/Republic opposed the application. He claimed that no sufficient reasons have been given to allow the Court grant the :application. He I challenged the application on two major grounds. One, the affidavit which he said lacks verifications and it is not deponed in accordance with the guidance which is given by the Oath and Statutory Declarations Act, Cap 34 R.E.

2002. Citing the.' case of Salima Vuai Foum versus Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Three others [1995] J.L.R 75, the learned State Attorney :said the affidavit I cannot be relied upon. Two, are the reasons for filing the application. Looking at Rule 66 which gives the conditions for filing a review, the learned State Attorney I said in terms of Rule 10 which requires an applicant se~king for extension of time to give sufficient cause, the applicants have failed to show that I they have good cause for filing an application for extension of time. He I 2 I I asked the Court to dismiss the appeal. He also referred the Court to the I case of Miraji Seif versus Republic Criminal Applicatioh no. 2 of 2009 .: I (unreported). ' The applicants had nothing to say in a rejoinder. As stated, the application is for extension of time to file a review. The ', I . question before me is whether the application has meriq I will outrightly ! agree with the learned State Attorney, that the application Ihas no merit. As ,I I correctly observed by the learned State Attorney the joint affidavit affirmed ! i by the applicants in support of their application is defectrive. It is neither I verified, nor conforms with the format of affirming an /affidavit. In this I . respect, and following the case of Salima Vuai Foum versus Registrar , I .I I ()f Co-operative Societies and Three Others [199f]

T.L.R. 75, it I cannot be acted upon. The second limb of the objection was the reason the applicants have relied ' . I ! upon to file the application. In an application for eftension of time ' ' sufficient reasons must be given. One such reason is th 7likelihood of the I review/appeal succeeding. See Royal iosurance Tanz,nia Ltd versus i Kwengwa Hotel Limited Civil Application No 111 of 2109 (Unreported). I 3 A review is governed by Rule 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009. The applicants have not shown that the judgment they are faulting fall. Under any of the five ground of filing a review as given in the said provision. What the applicants say is that they were not satisfied by the judgment of the Court. This means that they want to sta.rt another appeal which this Court is not a forum for such proceedings. See the case of Miraji Seif Versus Republic Criminal Application No 2 of 2009 (unreported). For the above reasons the application lacks merit and it is dismissed. DATED at TANGA this 1ith day of March, 2010 N. P. KIMARO J

JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. ~~ (N. N. CHUSI)

DEPUTY REGISTRAR 4