Elly Millinga vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 2016) [2017] TZCA 1054 (9 October 2017)

: ' ., IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA. AT IRING~ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2016 :•.,::•·.:ELLY Mll1LINGA ••• ■ 11 ■■■ a ■ 1:m ■■ 11 ■■•■■ 11 ■■■■ l' ■■ rl' ■ •iit1•• ■■ D'!l ■■ 11 ■■■ ali ■■■■ 1:. ■ 111 ■■ 11 ■ liil11 ■ •·n ■■ •11 ■ 11• APPELLANT VERSUS , :._ ... ,; 'THE REPUBLIC ■■■ ll11111 ■■■■■■■■■■ l' ■■ 1111 ■••••••• .. 11 ■■ 1111 ■--■ 11' ■ 1! ■■ 1111 ■■ 11 ■ r ■ 11i: ■ 11 ■ 11 ■■■ n11111111 ■■ 11 ■■■ 1; RESPONDENT {Appea~ from the decision of Resident Magistrate's Court ot· Songea at Songea with E4tended Jurisdiction) (Dyansobera. PRM.) ,. ' dated the 1\1! day of May, 200_7 . · -in RM. CrilJlinal Sessl,11 Case N_o. 5_Qf 2..0J.:.. H IC Crimin~I Session Case No. ___ ll! uf 2012 4 th & 10 th October; 2017 ~1JASlRI, J. A.: ~--------'-,,- ....... JUDGMENT OF THE C9URt .. -~~~- · .,·_ •. -'.'q>·' ·,:-:. In the Resident Magistrate's court of Songea· at Songea, the appellant ,:-: :>:~Hy Milinga was charged with and convicted of the offence of murder :·;-,: ;_;t:::.i ,c,on.trary to section 196 of the Penal Code, Cap 16, R.E. 2002 and was 1

··•· .. sentenced to death. Aggrieved by .the convictiorr and sentence,.:he ·has.:. ··i·• · appealed to this Court. The case ws heard by Dyansobera, RRM ·undi: extended Jurisdiction i ' • • . . . ; .. ., ' I . - ·. . . . .. after it was transferred from the High court. to the· Court of -Resident i ..... ·:·., : Maistrate with Extended• Jurisdicfici.n oh ·]a~~ry _"E(· 2013. Folloving the · i . . . ' . ' i . . i . .• . ': ··'· ,• ; •• •: ·, ' ,;• ·, ,,.,,,;. ·. ,•. •·. : ,' ' ' ,. tranfer order, the ma.tter'was heifrd.by'the--£6uf-the Resident Magistrate. 1 l • • . , The appellant, being· disstisfie· wi.f:h ·tWhJitio~ and sentence of· II .'· ··. . ... ·, . ' ··;··:• .·<.:,: ':,,•'·!:, ·.· '.' .,. . •. . . " . Dyapsobera, Principal Resident Magistrate ,vith ·:extended jurisdiction, filed c·j ... , - . . • . an ppeal to this CoU1t._ The appeal was struck 00t .. f0r being incompetent as __ · the·potice of appeal was found to be defectivJ The appellant subsequently '7 - . . ' .... ·:':: :_ .. ·'·• , .. ::/·C :·:·,i_. ,..;,:;,·· ;,,,_, -.. . . ;·,... ·. . filed1 an'application before the High Co_urt seeking ext:E!nslon of time to file a · 1 ' ' J ' ' notire of appeal and the appecll to 'the Court of Appeal and not before the cou1 of the Res_iden_Mc3gi_strate wh,er t~,e cae_·yv 9 s tra 1 0sferred. · The matter :.,_J ' . ,,' ',, ' .. ' ·.' : ; . , ·. i-. '. • .. : · ..... ·, ., ,. .. , ...... ,, .. : ·, : .·.· ' . ' was1heard by Chikqyo, J'. wo granted ~~,e, e.x~e.n?i9f.1 .. of time leading to the :i .' . . . . . 'l ' ''°. ... ',• ... ': , .... :, .. ,. i' ;' .'. '•',; ··' ,' . ··:. !' :'' • filing of the app?al now l?efore this Court. . :I . · ... ·_,:"·.'.'. i,/ .. _,' .'(.' '•,·.JJ>, 1.' -:L ;·.,•.,. I' 2

At the hearing of the appeal; the appellant was represen_ted by Mr. · ... ·. -f3arnabas Nyalusi, learn~;d adyoc:c;:1te and the respondent had the services of · .. , , : Mr. Hamimu Nkoleye, assisted by_Ms Helen Chuma, !earned Stae Attorneys. ' . ,' .' When the appeal was called on for hearing the Court raised :its concrn '. .·· · :to: (:ounsel as to w~ether it Was :appropriate for the application for extension· ottime to be heard by the. High Court given.' the· fact that the record was i .. ·· .. :transferred to ttiec::ourt of the Resi.dent Magistrate under section 256A(l) of thejCriminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E. 2002 (the CPA). The Court also ·.made referen'Ce to"section 11 cifthe Appellate Jurisdiction Act., Cap 141. R.E. I .. , , ... :• . . . . , . • . .' .· .. :, •·· .... . . I ' 200.~ (the Act) .. ··· .. ·, I I ,, ,J -, .,. i • ··,.·, , ;:{j Mr. Nyalusi readily conceded that thert1 was an :::1nornaly, In the light. 'j ·.of ~~ction 11. of the Act, the 'applk:ati6h :'f6r extension of time shou-id have ~· . .... , ,.,bee_ih made to the court of the Resident ·. Magistrate with extended -1 ' ,' . ' ' ; ' - ···. ,' ... " '•, ' . ' ' '' ,. ' j • -: ;f :,;•;·;,,· j:uridiction. Mr. Nyalusi admitte,d that given that the extension. of time was .·• ; . • • • . . • • • - • a • • . . , ~ ;• ; • '. \ \ : • ~ • . • • • • • i : .. : ·:·,:not-granted by the appropriate court, in view of thE: transfer of the case to I . . . . . . . , . ·<·.:.·· .. : . . . . . .: •· the-l court of the Resident Magistrate, the appeal· IJefore the Co~rt is . - : . : :,. . . . : '• -- ' . ,: •, . : -· · ' . . ,. ' . ' .' r , · fr1cornpetent. The appeal has therefore been filed without notice. He also I I mad reference to section 256A(1) and 173(1) of the CPA. I , i 3

He submitted further that since the extension·oftime was n:orproperly i > 1 • ,:, granted, the order of the High Court should be nullifieq. and the appeal . should be struck out. However, Mr. Nyalusi, in the alternative asked the ourt to invoke Rule 4(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, (the . . . :.. .. . ,: ·:Court Rules) in the interest of justice· in order-to grant him extension of time . ' to file the appeal under Rule 47 of the Court Rules. ! . l -~'. .,. ,. : ; Mr. Nkdleye readily agreed to the submis.sions: made l1y the learned i\>l~~::· _ ·: ·· :·· 1 · -r- d.vocate for the appellant. He stated that; it is indeed the legal position. He ,: .. s,ked the Court to strike out the appeal. H opposedthe argumentraised in ; :, .. ' the, alternative by tile counsel for the appe!lc1nt. Accordirigto hi, Rule 4(1) ... ; . :::of .the Court Rules does not apply. The appeal is incompetent and ·should be ' ! -~ . ,• . . • . ' . • i :" . :1 .. . . struck out. '·I ··•: .,''' On our part, we are inclined ·to agree with. c:ounsef. Once a transfer has· .. b,ee,n made under section 256A(i) of the· CPI'\ to th~ Resident Magistrate's .1. '• , . . . './:qurt, the record canno·-loger be'corisidered·as a rec:otd of the High Court. Section 256A( 1) of the CPA .provides that:- 4 V

,(1) the H,~qh Cou.11 may_:d/rect tl7at the taking of'.a - . . plea .and the tria/.,of an· accused person comrnitted: :::: .. . . . ·. .. -· . ·.· ·- . . ... , . . ' . , •. ; fortrialbythe. High Collrt be transferred to/' and be· ·· . : . ·· ·

• • . ' -~ .. · .. ,i .. . ' . . . • . • ' conducted. by· a. Resident Magistrate .upon //1thom extended jurisdiction · ha.s been {!ranted under. subsection (1) ofsection 173. · . . -, ._ We are of the considered ·view that, the High -'Court had no jl.irisdictiOn to entertain the application for xtensioh of time·.·thi· would beequivalent clearly set out in section 11 ofthe Act which provide) as follows:.: .
• . ''Subject to subsection,:(2J the ll1i7h Court or~ where . . . ' . \ . . . . ~ .. an appeaf lifJ . .; . fro,m .·. - ... . ,$1.J.i'?ordi1~~te. •· court: ... . ~ . . ' : . . . , , ' . ' .. , . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ' exercising eJttentled powr~~; .. the subordinate ·. j . . -. . ·.• ; . . ' . ', • ' .-· ~ • ·. ·. ' . ' court concer11ed,·,may •. ;e¥tend .. (he:;:li.mf:·· fi)r ,'. . . .. , ' ., ·- ': .· · ... •·' .. ' ./ giving the notice of.intentiop t,o .if-ppea! from a .· , ,i . -·· ".: :': . , . . . " . ', .• "•' - .. ·, .. - , ' .. judgment of_ tffe Higf!;=-['?.~lft. ;:tJ:t:: pf the :··;·''.. ,. subordinate court concerned, for. n-1aking an ··· · · •.• · applicationforleaveto appea/or..forr-a·.r:,erlificate that :-:i,· . . .. •' . • . ., ,. I,. ., . ., 5

the caseisa fit case for ?Jppeq,ft notwithstanding that t/Je time for giving · the notice · or n7.1king the · application has already expired/'-· [Emphasis ours] .. • · . .·.- . 1. .- .... ' . ~ . . In the instant case after. the cae. wafr tran$ferred under section 256A(1) of the CPA to the court of Resident: Magistrate, it was the.Resident . . . . ....... Magistrate with . extended jurisdiction who conducted the trial. Hence the ... recprd for ali. · intnts .· and rxirp.ds'es 'was'. ini;'ti1e court· of the Resident • , •. '. !" • • . Magistrate ad notthe High Court. It-was thetefe>r not proper for a judge . ~~ - . . ... , of: the High Court td handle-the app!icath.1n ··t-6r'exteh.s1bh of tirnd!sctionll. . of the Act, dearly provides a distinctroi"6£twerf mattfrs handled by the • .. - . 'i ... :j : ...... ' . . . . ., - . ''. .·. . . ·. :, :· Jii.gh Court and those handled by the cbutt·'of Resident Magistrate with extended jurisdiction . . / , This Court has. provided similar guidance on transfers under section ·;,: .. ,., , ·). '. ·.' :, ' •·. 1 -56A(l) of the CPA, that ,.onc;:e, a plea, ang a prelifDinary hearing has been . ·:..'. ... • .· .. '.) _:·-.·- : - .·'.,_ -· ~ -·:, ·. -·-_:;·::..· . . ' . .; . ,.- . , .· .conducted by the High Court, the case has to be heard by the High Court, a . . . . . . . . . ', : . -. . . ; ·-. '. :, { . .• . . . ,, . : -. Resident Magistrate with extended jurisdiction wiU not have jurisdiction to ,.,_ ,, .. ,. ' . . . hear the case. In the same vein, if the case was transferred to the Resident Magistrate's court and heard by the High Court, it would mean the Judge 6

i- .,:.• .- :·· 1 would be sitting 1nte court of a Resident Mag,itrate. See_ Shabani William·.'., v. Republic, CrtminaL.Appeal No . .358 of 2014. . ~ . ' . . . . This Courthas stated on variot.isbccasions thafa Resident Magistrate' with extended jurisdiction shall sifin a· Reside,it Magistrate's court but not i · '•: ' ·; :,: cthe High Court.'' See for ·exam pi~·, Erney Gape'r·'Asenga V Republic, :-Crii;ni.nal Appeal No. 238 of2007.{unreported). If a judge sits in the Resident - · Magistrate's court, Jt would be an irregula.rity call1ngJor revision. • . • •• : • I•. . • • . • ! . • . • . :• . : ' ~ ' . < ,: • • • \ .. , Once the transfer. of the case was macfe to the Resident Magistrate . . ... .: . .., :.-i . :. : :, .: . ,,. ... .··.-· : :_ .. • .. ·. . ._ : ·- . '·· '. •=; <.<,· '. ,_of ;time· to. b handled by a Judge., We hve considered Mr. Nya!usi's :' :: ,. a!ternative prayer forthe Court to· extend time to file an appeal. Given the· . thereof, we decline to grant his alternative_ prayer': In order to. remedy the illegality ,of the proceedings before the High '. • ,..;'· .• <. ,. -i' ,..::::·.: . :.·; :. ·-::; __ ;· :-: .:::.::. .· .. :)' .. / ;·-.::.'.;/" _{,.; /:·r si-:..: ,, ~ i .Court, we invoke our power of revisior1 under section .. 4(2) <)f the Act. We . . _ · .• • .' :- 1 : , ,;··. ::> ·· ,:_ ·,· · •' .. L ~ .·'·, /·-- ::<.r ,: · :f . /·,}., /-j· - .· ,

• '·~ ~ . . . . .·· . . - accordingly quash the entire proceedings and Ruling of Chikoyo, J. . , - .:, ., .. · ·• .-·· ... ;!(:.,,,,-_., ·-·x.::.t•>.:. i- .. // ::' _:··.::<'.>;•>. · : · :,:t'r .. ~ . · . 7

In-criminal appeals it i~ the notice 1 ;'of appJa·I ~lhk:hh1stitutes the appeal (Rule 68(1)· of the Rules). As the no.tice f appeal is OL1t of the time, we hereby ,strie out the appeal for being incompetent. ' I ~rder accordingly .. ! DATED at IRINGA this 9 th day of Octqber, 2017. I . -: ... , .. ··.. , .•. : ,,- . . ·, .. S. MJASIRI . . JUSTICE Of APPEAL 's.· M. MMILLA · . JUSTICE OF APPEA9= .. ·. ·. r : : r ... :-- ; ~' .

• · -·. ;:s. A .. LILA JUSTICE Of APPEAL · I. certify that this is a true _copy of the original. ·- ·· . . ' ·, E.F.· p~ s I DEPUTY RE ISTRAR COURT OF'APPEAL: · ·:, .-.,~. . ' . . . : .. ·: ,' .. '. . ........ ·. . . '. •·· .. _. . . . . . 8 I . I ! l .