Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal dismissed a revision application challenging discharge after nolle prosequi and fresh committal proceedings following an earlier retrial order.
Section 36(2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act is in parimateria with Section 148(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal in Mtobesya case. Therefore, the DPP's certificate denying bail is not valid and cannot bar the court from hearing the bail application on its merits.
Source excerpt
The High Court cannot grant bail to the applicants because a valid certificate objecting to bail was filed by the DPP under section 36(2) of the Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act, and the court is bound by statute and Court of Appeal precedent to refrain from granting bail in such circumstances.
Source excerpt
S.36(2) ECOCCA remains valid law; once the DPP files a certificate objecting bail, the court is precluded from granting bail unless the certificate is withdrawn.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a revision application challenging the DPP’s withdrawal of charges and substitution of a new preliminary inquiry, holding the DPP acted within statutory powers.
The High Court dismissed a revision challenge to the DPP’s withdrawal of criminal charges, holding that nolle prosequi was lawful and abuse claims required judicial review.
The Court of Appeal upheld quashing of proceedings after the DPP entered a nolle prosequi and re-charged accused persons in a different court to deny bail.
The DPP's statutory power to take over and continue criminal proceedings is exclusive and not subject to judicial review or court refusal once a private prosecution has been permitted. The District Court erred in law by refusing to allow the DPP to exercise this power. The DPP is not required to provide reasons or be subject to court control in exercising this discretion.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the DPP’s decision to discontinue a private prosecution under section 90(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reviewable by court.
The High Court held that the DPP’s discontinuance of a private criminal prosecution under section 90(1)(c) could not be challenged by the courts and no reasons were required.
Explore more
