Robert s/o Nyakie @ Nati vs The Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Application No. 65 of 2024) [2025] TZCA 901 (28 August 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 65 OF 2024 ROBERT S/O NYAKIE @ NATI ........................... ................. APPLICANT VERSUS THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS... ...................... RESPONDENT (Application for Extension of time to file to file review from the Judgment of the Court at Sumbawanga) fNdika, Sehel and Kente. JJA.) dated the 20th day of September, 2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2018 RULING 25th & 28th August, 2025 FELESHI. 3.A.: Robert s/o Nyakie @ Nati (the applicant) has moved this Court by a notice of motion under rules 10 and 66 (1) (b) and (e) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules) to grant him an extension of time to file a review out of time to assail its decision in Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2018, delivered on 20/9/2021. The applicant's delay in filing his application for review per paragraph 3 of his affidavit, is attributed to late receipt of the Court's judgment and inter-prison transfers.

The applicant is serving a twenty years' imprisonment sentence for the offence of being found in the unlawful possession of government trophies under Section 86 (1) and (2) (c) (ii) of the Wildlife Conservation Act, Chapter 283 read together with Paragraph 14 of the First Schedule and Section 57(1) of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act, Chapter 200 which was meted out on him by the Court of Resident Magistrate of Katavi at Mpanda which tried his case and ultimately convicted him. This application ensues the dismissal of the applicant's appeals by the High Court of Tanzania and this Court, At the hearing, the applicant appeared in person, unrepresented, while Ms. Irene Mwabeza, learned Senior State Attorney, represented the Respondent. When invited to present his case, the applicant opted to let the State Attorney begin, reserving his right to rejoin. Ms. Mwabeza opposed the application, arguing it lacks merit due to the applicant's unsubstantiated claims of delayed receipt of the judgment and inter prison transfers. She contended that the notice of motion and affidavit fail to comply with rule 66 (1) of the Rules, contending that the applicant's allegations of an unfair hearing and illegality in the judgment are unsupported. Furthermore, she argued that the applicant improperly

included grounds for review as if leave had already been granted, rendering the application incompetent. Ms. Mwabeza supported her argument with the cases of Pantaleo Teresphory v. Republic (Criminal Application No. 55/06 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 514 and Mussa Mosses John and 2 Others v. Republic (Criminal Application No. 12 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1307, where the Court emphasized that specific grounds must be provided for an extension of time. She further noted that vague allegations are insufficient to warrant an extension, as a judgment remains legally valid unless proven otherwise. Ms. Mwabeza highlighted the applicant's history of filing incompetent applications in this Court and urged the Court to dismiss the present application which amounts to an abuse of the court process. In his brief rejoinder, the applicant reverently urged the Court to consider his circumstances, stating that he was transferred to Songwe Prison shortly after the 2021 judgment and later to Sumbawanga prison, which he claims hindered his ability to meet legal deadlines. He requested the Court to grant his application. Having reviewed the notice of motion, the applicant's affidavit, and the submissions from both parties, the critical issue is whether the application has merit. Rule 10 of the Rules grants the Court discretion to

extend the time for any action required or authorized by the Rules, provided good cause is shown, whether before or after the time limit expires. In Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd vs Board of Registered of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania (Civil Application 2 of 2010) [2011] TZCA 4, the Court clarified that this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based on reason and justice, not arbitrarily or on personal opinion. The Court outlined the following guidelines: "(a) The applicant must account for all the period o f delay; (b) The delay should not be inordinate; (c) The applicant must show diligence and not apathy, negligence, or sloppiness in the prosecution o f the action that he intents to take; and (d) I f the Court feels that there are other sufficient reasons such as the existence o f a point o f law o f sufficient importance, such as the illegality o f the decision sought to be challenged." Under rule 66 (3) of the Rules, an application for review must be filed within sixty days from the date of the judgment. It is undisputed that the Court's judgment was delivered on 20/9/2021 and this application was filed on 18/4/2024, over two years and seven months

later. Thus, the deadline for filing a review expired on 20/11/2021. As correctly argued by Ms. Mwabeza the reasons for the intended review are a critical requirement under Rule 66, as reinforced in Pantaleo Teresphory v. Republic (supra) and Mussa Mosses John and 2 Others v. Republic (supra). The applicant's affidavit contains four paragraphs, which I reproduce them in extenso :

1. " That, I am the applicant o f the present application hence conversant with all facts to be deposed.
2. That, I was convicted for the offence o f unlawful possession o f government trophy c/s 86(1) (2) (c ) (ii) o f the wildlife conservation Act No. 05 o f 2009 and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years in jail.
3. That, due to the delaying o f judgment from the court o f appeal and transfer to several prison upon me according to the prison's time table I was not able to file review on time.
4. That, I believe the court wili use its wisdom to allow my application and determine /£"[Emphasis supplied.] Notably, the applicant provides no documentary evidence or specific details such as the date he received the judgment to support his claims of delay or inter-prison transfers. He has not accounted for the delay of over two and a half years. The importance of stating such

grounds was underscored in Boniface Alistedes v. Republic (Criminal Application No. 06/08 of 2019) [2022] TZCA 56. As correctly argued by Ms. Mwabeza, neither the applicant's notice of motion and affidavit nor his oral submission during the hearing substantiated the alleged cause of delay. As it is, I respectfully agree with Ms. Mwabeza that this application constitutes an abuse of court process. In the upshot, I find the application lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. DATED at DODOMA this 27th day of August, 2025. E. M. FELESHI JUSTICE OF APPEAL Ruling is delivered this 28th day of August, 2025 in the presence of the Applicant in person and Ms. Irene Mwabeza learned senior state Attorney for the Respondent/Republic, both through virtual court, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. 6