Bahati Ndunguru @ Moses vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2015) [2017] TZCA 991 (9 October 2017)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT IRINGA (CORAM: MJASIRI, J.A., MMILLA, J.A •. And LILA,J.A.) . . : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.· 519 OF 2015· BAHATI NDUNGURU ·@ MOSES •••••••• ~ ••••••• '~ •••••• ■-.■ u~ •• ~ ••••••• ~ ............ APPELLANT VERSUS ,·.;- --: - ·: :· ;rt:t·E REPUBLIC 8 I ... ■■■■■•.•■■- ■■.-. I ■ I ■ ..... -. ■■ .... ~ I I 11••· ........ ■ ~ a~·a ■·•· •- ■ ·a~~-. I~~~ I Iii ■ •• 19 RES PON DENT • (Appeal from the decision of Resident Magistrate · Court of Ruvuma at Songea) . . (Dyansobera,:PRM'.) ,-:::: ,: · Dated the 13 th .day of Jun.e, 201.3. . in. · . Criminal Session--No .. 19 of 2012, . .·.: ·'\ , •. __ , .t. • •. ll.JDGMENT. OF THE'COURT 6~ 1 & 11 th October 2017 ·: .bJLAe l.A.: . . : 1: '. ! ,,-·. ·. . .. . ' ,t:;i :•,:' :.,. ·:.: This is. the setond attempt' by the. appeliant;-iB'ahati · Ndunguru, to :; . :· · .. ·challenge the decision· 111 'RM riminal-session· case Nd 19 of 2012 which ,·, .. , , ·,.:was. tried by the Principal ·Resident:Ma'gistrate .-wi'th ':Extended Juhsdict16n .'.· :'·r <:.(W;)P. Dyansobera PRM· Ex.J):' 'That ·case fell fn tfo{ hands of thEi/'Resident . . , :-, '.: >>/ Magistrate with Extended · Jurisdiction following -the transfer made by the · :Judge In-charge (R.A. Teemba/J.fon 8th January, 2013 und,et: section 1

256A of the Criminal. Procedure, Act,, Cap 20 R.E.2002 (the CPA). The . . .. . . . . . . transfer was in respect o~ High Court Criminal Session case No. ·4 of 2012. -In that case the appellant was facing a charge. of murd_er contrary to . sectipn 196 of the Penal Code, Cc;tp 16 R.E 2002. He was convicted as charged and was handd down -a sentence of death by hanging. · !c-' Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to: ·the ·court but it was realized - . . . . . •. :.:: .that he notice ofappeal suffered;frorh ·an incurable defect as the appellant. ... --::1 . : . . . . . ,· •. . . . : . . .. had:not indicated. the number of the ·case which he intended to appeal -, . agairst. The appea·I -was accordin.giyf.struck out. ·. 1· . I ; -:-i ... · -- i Still believing that the Court could do justice to hirn, and having. 'j . .·. ',,. ·. -.,fQunr himself late to lodge his notice ·_of appeal ·and appeal, the applicant ·: .. , :. · fi_led: I in the High Court .an. application • for extension of time. That was 7 .. · .. ·· . . . . . . . rnistllaneous Crirninill Application No. 20 of 2015. On 11/11/2015, the ._-.,·.. . ,:Hig~ Court (S.M .. Chikoyo, J.) granted the application and he was given fouJen (14) . days_ within whic·h:: to :fii his notice of appeal hence this I appe~I. . l I At the hearing of this appeal the respondent Republic had the· . . · servi ,es of Hamimu Nkoleye, _assisted by Ms. HeJlen Chuma, learned State 2 ,

Attorneys, while Mr. Jackson Chau la, learned advocate, appeared for the · appellant who was also. present in.Court . ' . (

• It is worth mentioning· here that earlier· on the respondent Republic . . •· had· raised two points of preliminary objection, a notice of which was filed : , in-<:;ourt on 4/10/2017. The practice demanded the objection be heard . fi(s.t. ·. However, after a·short conversation with the Court, Ms-Chuma opted to withdtaw,that.notice of objection.>. l . . , . , .. :.:· :- ,- . . . Ms Chuma, did not sit back. She, instead, raised the attention of the .. ' . . : .· . : _ •_, ., Court on the apparent anomaly obtaining in the· record of appeal that while . . .
• . , ;:. - : :nth~ case, the decisi.on of ·which is subject of this appeal. originated from. the · :• :. ,,· 1 , :-:Reident magistrtes' Court where it was, tried by· a:·:Resident Magistrate··'' ,.·., .. i<- : :;.:r.'-·i_th E,qended Jurisdiction,: the .application.Jar extension of time. to appeal ·.:;. •_: •-:tq the Cort was.- :;ought-and. granted by the. High··Court.; Se was emphatic - . : · .. ·tha:t it was not. propr: in view of, the-provisions of section 11 (1) of the · .. =>. _ Appellate Jurisdictin.:Act,. Cap :141,,.R.E 2002 -:(AJA) Which requires the . ,t •· application for extension of time be sought in the court which _ made the gecision subject of appeal. She was of the view that as the case was heard , • • • • • .I ~ • • • $ · .. ,·. : .. · .. .. and determined by a Resident Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction . ; ' . . 3

seating in the Resident Magistrates' Court, then the application for extension of time also ought to have beeri filed, ·h·eard and· determied_by· · .. ,. that very court .not the High Court. She ad::ordingly urged the ·court to . . trike out the appeal for being· time barred as the o!rder of the High Cort . · -granting extension of time is.-a nullity;· hence 1t is a:fif no extensin: of time, was granted. _, :--+ -- • _.,I. On his :Part, Mr. Chaufa, .reaoily conceded to the anomaly raised -by fJ.._~~·-• l •, . .' >J ' • • • ,..-,;,Lo*-,, .... _:.-,·, . . : M_s. Chuma. ::·:i: sa1d. after- the Court. had truck out the· appellant's appeal, ·-7--··: -- ' . . . : . : :_ :·. Jhn the appellant was obliged to lodge his ap.plicatfon for exterision of. ·;· , ·::, ::.' tjn,e to file notice of appeal and appeal to the Court which convicted and :_ -_ . ; . , . .. , .. :Sentenced him, that is the Resident Magistrates' court where it was to be ,::: heard by a Residen,t Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction. He said by . : ·_. . .. . . ::'•: _;: >.': ... ,_' ·:. \ -·-lodging such application in the High Court the appellant was wrong as he :.i .- . . ! cqntravened the requirements of...sectiQ8. 11 (1) of AJA. He painfully, urged _, .. :.· th Court to strike out the appeal· s6 that the appellant may comply with , law by filing his applkation -for 'extension of time before the court which convicted him. 4 ._, .· ;•

·On our, part; we fully associate ourselves with the views expressed by both the learned ... ?tate·Attorney and the learned ·counsel. I '' '. Before we determine the merits of this .appeal· we wish to explore the ' '' .. . -:rsultant effect of a .case being transferred to the: Resident Magistrates' . . - · court exercising extended ·powers . . ,: As alluded to above, the Judge In-charge of the High Court at •. :· w.' ,•, \•-c'"" · .. • !. : •.· ; ' .. .Songea exercisfng powers under.section 256A of the CPA, transferred High "' . ·-Court Crim.inal session case No. ·4- ·of 2012·:to· :be tried. in the Resident· -:: '--·Magistrates' court presided by a · Reside.nf Magisfrt1te· with . e>,.erided • ,' ~ o ' ~ 'f . 1• I . • • • ~ ' ' ··.: -Jrisdiction (W.P. Dyansobera, PRrvi)/As··to whafc3re· to11sequerices ofsuch. ,· , . . "" '--- :: transfer,. the Court in·the ·case· ··of Elly ·MiHinga -Vs :Republ'i'c, Criminal Appeal No: 26.8 of 2014 CA (un·reported}'stated:-.:· ,,, "::•. · ·• t : ''In ·essenc~ we ·are of the opinion that · when a •.·. ·: ... :- , . Resid,ent Magistrat~ is confe,red with. extended jurJsdiction. to entertain· a specific hearing of a case or an appeal in the High Court, his status and that . of the Court to which he has been assigned to sit does not change and make him as a Judge or sitting 5

. : ' · .. - '. .I in the High' Court, he is merely deemed to be a· · judge or deemed to sit atthe High Court. ''. ; The ·Court went on .to state that> r "That is why once a formal order of transfer has been made, the· transferred , appeal · shall be registered in the court of Resident Magistrate, given · '. a 1 fresh number and be heard and· determined in . ~ . . thkt court. Thereafter, an appealfrom that decision. of that court lies:directly to thif Court:, i . -_ , The import· of the above. holding is simply that when a- case - is· .. I i ·t.ran1ferred to the- Resident Magistates' court:so_as. to· be,.tried. by.·a ! . . J~~si1ent Magitrate wi_th Extendd Jurisdiction- nothing remains· in the High •· Court. The hearing and determin.ation of that case is to be done in tllat ! I I I . cou and the appeal therefrom lies directly to Court ... - , I • . i . : . . ' \ ., . '. •.. ·- . . .; .·.· .. ····:!Reverting to the .. preserlt appeal, extens.ion of t'i,ne to file a notice of I . j ' . . . .· · . . '' ... ' ,· ;· ·._ .-· .. ·' ... ·. ,· ·,. appe~I and appeal to the _.court is governed by the provisions of section 11 (1) of AJA. That section provides: · . ; . . . ' . . - 6

1 I I I I i . j I I ! ' \ ·i I ! .• i "11-(1) subject to sub;.section (2), the High Court or, where an 'iappeal lies· form a subordinate court exercising extended powers, the subordinate court concerned, may extend the time for givif'!g notice of intention to appeal from a judgment of the High Court or of the subordinate court concerned, for inaking · an application for leave ·to.' appeal or for a ce,tificate that the . case· is a 'lit case···. for' appeal· . notwithstanding· that -the time for' .. giving the notice .. or making the· application has already expired '' . : . . ~ ; .- ' . . : .:·:> ._.i; ·.<•·. 1 It· is 'apparent tha_t · the High Court and the Court have concurrent .. -i . . . jurisJiction in the .exercise of powers cnferred under section 11(1) of AJA .. I . . · Sirnilrly, a subordinate court exercising ext:ended··-powers has powers to ' I . . . . . . . . . , . . xterjd time in respect ·of a ·matter.it had tried in thaftapacity. Elaborating • I • .. ~ • I . • , . I '.>··· __ on ·trle application :of se·ction ll(l) of AJA ·and·'·Rule· 47 of the Rules, the- · ~ :t . ·i . • . . . · ·• :_-:-J, · Cou1 in the case of Mkunazini· Shipping Enterprises Vs Said Kham is I • Hambd, ZNZ Civil Application No. S of 2012,·stated:- .·. ·, I I I j 7

''Section 11 (1) of the ·Appellate Jurisdiction. Act Cap 141 R.£ 2002 (theAct) to·i:Je read with Rule 47 of the Rules is very clear. It says where an appeal lies from a subordinate court exercising extendedpowers~ that-subordinate court and not the High Court as. contended by I . . Mr. Abdallah has powers .to extend the tir11e for the giving not· only the· notice.:·i>f appeal . . .. but also granting an application for leave tv appeal as well as to certify whether it is· a fit case to con1e .-: .·· to this Court on appeal.'' -:: , · ::•,: Given _the above· legal pos_ition-there .i?-- po ::dpubt that the-appellant _ •. ought to have had. filed his ·application- for extension,.:of time, to file the . . · notice of appeal and an appeal before the Resident Magistrates' court

• · exercising extended powers not the High Court It follow? therefore that it , . . , . was improper for the High Court to entertain that application on account of . . . .. . : . . . . . .
• lack of jurisdiction.-, In .the circumstances, the order by the High Court
• granting extension of time was invalid. Exercising the powers of revision · conferred to this Court under s~ction 4 (2) of AJA, we hereby revise the 8

. proceedings and oder of the Hi_gh Court in Miscellaneous Criminal : . • 'I ' '• •. ' Application No. 20 of 291_5 and proceed to· nullify them. . ~ . . . - ,. ~ The usual consequences following nullification of the High Court .• t • . . . proceedings and order granting·· extension of time•· is that no order for . ;., .. : : ·.' . : . . . - . .- . . . . ' . . . . . '. . ~ . . . . . . extension of time existed. The notice of appeal iri the record w.as thus filed :' ::·••·· . . ·• . . . . . . .. • •, . . ~ . ' .. ... -....c i · -.- put of time. As, in criminal cases; Linder Rule 68 (1). of the Rules it is the :' ~- >; . :· . -~. . : -' : : ·: .. . : . .- .' . -· .. · .. :. :.. ... . . . 1 .:::: .,hptice of appeal which lnstitutes an appeal, then thi --~ppeal automatically -_j .. ·. . . . ·:. · ;,.. . ~ i· : ' . ·. . . . . . . . . ··. : . . . . . _ _-=; econies incompetent for want of a valid notice of appeal.

• 1 - ... ·. "'·. . ... ; . . - ..... ' In fine, the appeal is incom,petent. It is. hereby stiuck out. DATED at· IRINGAthis .. '9 th
• day of October, 2017. .. . S. MJASIRl Ju·sT1ce oi= APPEAL B.M. MMILLA JUSTICE OF"APPEAL S.A: LILA. JUSTICE OF. APPEAL: . l certify that this is a true cop of the 9r:igi_n,al. · ' E.F. f. ss1, . - DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF A\pPEAL \ 9