Alen Alex Zanda Mwakyusa vs The Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 599 of 2015) [2017] TZCA 1305 (5 October 2017)

' IN THE COURT Of APPEAL OF TANZANIA · AT MBEYA :·'. ·· {CORAM: MUSSAJ.A~ MZIRA'.,)A., And NDIKA.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599.0F 2015 : : .i I :·,:'• ''· ... ., ;· :·: : ALEN ALEX ZAN DA MWAKYl)SA ··········••uu•,•········••.•············ APPELLANT . , . VERSUS :., , . ·.•;·,;•, .. , i THE REPUBLIC ••••••••••••••••••••.•••• ■■■ ri ■ i- ■■■■ 11 ■•,•••• .. ••••d••t1.a41 ■ .11 ■ u ■ !lno1111 RESPONDENT , • I ,, . • ·, • ' .•.• ' (Appeal from the decision of the High tourt at Mbya) {A, M. Lyamuya., SRM--·with Extepded J.urisdktim.1} . . . .. . ted the 9 th dyo.f Ma.r:c.h, i.05 · · · · · -··· in·;· .:· .. --•.:, :. · . . . Criminal Ap_2_eal_No. 34-·of 20:l4 . __ _..n,.-llal-•-.:··,,;,,:,,. •••'1-.·...:.·'_:' ·;• .'·:·.,; ,,:. . . ,. . ! : , . ': .- . ~ ,,. ....• - ~ ...... • J ..... , .. •' ••• • • ••. ,. ·' . : MZIRAY, l.A: ·. ·. · :., •· -.': :, ;.'. :·: and convicted of ..the offnce of armed robbery contrary to section · .,: ·.,'. ,:.-;.: :··1·.,-·: 1 287 A ofth Penal .Code .. The trial ou_rt,,)h-'.~esipent Magistrate's . --=-1 . .. . . ' . . . . . .- . .. . . . ·. . . . I ... ; , •:- ··.: .... · .I Court of Mbeya pt _Mbeya, sentenced him to>erye thirty. ,{30) yan; . .imprisonment. 1

Aggrieved· by that decision of the trial court, he_ appealed to the: High Court of Tanzania at·Mbeya, wherein, his appeal was registered as DC Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2014. Invoking the provisions of section 45 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts'Act, Cap llRE:2002 ,· the.Judge incharge, Mbeya, ordered that the ·said· appeal be transferred to the Resident Magistrate's Court at Mbeya, for hearing before A. M:. Lyamuya, Senior Resident , ·, Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction. At ·the Reident Magistrate's Court, the ppeal was registered as (DC) _Criminal Appeal No. 34 bf . • .. • . .'. • ' , . ' ~ . ·.. . • , . : ' . • '• I ... 2014. The said Senior Resident Magistrate with extended jurisdiction . I ' heard the appeal and· dismissed it. : :· · Undaunted_the_appe_llan .carrie,,before this Court,- raising eleven · · , __ ,. : .... (11) grounds in his Memorandum of Ar.,peal. He was unrepresented -: :··· . .-, / .. '• _: . . : " before us . while ·the Respondent ·Republic was represented by Ms. Catherine Paul, learned State-Attorney.: Before, · commencement of · hearing and for · a proper .. . . determination of the· appeal and avoidance of doubt, the Court raised 2

. . ~ . . ; . • •., ' ! . . ' .· .. ,., ... . · .a po·int,, sua motu, by seeking clarification from the parties - on the propriety of the Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant on 30/3/2015. he Court then invited the- parties to address;·on th:is pojnt. · The appellant, a layman, _had nothing useful to submit on ·this point of law. He claimed tht the Court should consider him as he is confined in prison and he is. hot· the one· ·who drafted- the notice. Hence, he said the prison authority 'is ·tM"on~ ld:be blamed. On her part, the. larneg ___ State. Attorney, conceded that the '• ..... , .. · defectivJ. She:· pointeq out that the Notice of /.\ppeal refers - to a . ,.,. .. , ,·.. ; ' :- ; ;·' · .. , . ~ , ,. ·.. .. ' decision in Criminal Appeal ·No.:· 4'' of 201.4 instead of (DC) Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014. · The law is that in a ·criminal appeal, .it is the notice of appeal ' • • ( • • , , : • • _:,.- I , : ,/ :••, •;' >• . ' ;, .. "; ,:,::\ :•• '. . • •: , .. _ -. _:;-··- :·,•: that institutes the appeal according 'to Rule 68 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 20.09. Going bythe/'ppll~~t;' N6tice of Appeal, it is obvious that the. same is fatally defectiv·-,i·h: the sense ttiat it makes •, • •• ; •: • I : • • ... : ••' ~ ,• • •, • •• ! ' • reference to the wrong registry number of the case or citation, 3 ! • ' ·• . . ; ;

:-·· . · namely, Criminal Appeal No: 4 o( 2014; instead of the correct reference, i.e. (DC} Criminal Appeal No: 34 of 2014. The· Court Rules ·ih its First Schedule, Form B, provides for a format for a notice of appeal ad for the particulars to be filled · therein. The.format was.not complied with. As. discussed above, the . . . . . . I registry number of the case to be appealed against is wrongly referred. . . A situatiort similar to the present one· was encountered by the Court in the case 6( SirriaUke· Mwanjoka· v •. Republic/ Criminal Appeal No. 138-of 2010, CAT (unrported). In that case Mr. Kakc;laki, learned State Attorney who appeared for the respondent RepL1hlic, : · .. . had submitted that _the notice qf appeal wrongly indicated the decision appealed against•to:.,have been. .. in :respect of Criminal Application No 1·.9f..20d7de!lvered. QYJhe.~HJgh.,Court (Lukelelwa, .J.) .. . . on. 23/07/2007; while :the-proper decision which was being appealed against was Criminal Revision No 1 of.2007. This Court held: ,, . . . ' ''The. law is that- in a criminal appeal it is the notice · of appeal that institutes the appeal , 4 ·-,·: ·- . '·' ·'·: ·,- •

i

• J.. ·(Rule 61(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules/ _ 197i (old Rules) and Rule 68 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (new Rules). Going by t[,e appellant~ notice of appeal we would fully agree with M~. !(akolaki · that . it is fatally defective in its 'reference to the wrong registry l • . . , . number of - the case . or citation; namely, Criminal Application No 1 of 2007; · inst(;ad of .! ' I i , the correct reference, ...... " In Elia Masena Kachala and Two others Vs· Republic --- . , ~ t :· ··: :--.,.,. . '! Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2012 (unreported), this Court observed . . II' ' .. , .. ",. '.. I•' l. . ..., . . .,.. · .. ~ . r I ' I I J .- .-.;. -7 ''For· a notice of appeal to th/.<; ·Court to b_e · ";, . ,. vc1lid, it is mandato1y that it must indicate not only the date of the challengedjudgment and . . the_ name · of . the -. 'trial/appe/Jale, · · Judge/magistrate;· but -also. the triiil/appellate court ·a11d the correct registra_tion ,number . . ' . ' , . -: . . . ·, . ,: . . of the case/ appeal in the lower court." . . ..... ,·,' .. · . . . . [Emphasis added.] ' . ' See also the decision of the Court of Appeal in Patrick Ngongi .:.·! 1 Kindanyani V~ "The -Republic, Criminal .Appeal. No_.253 of 2005 [unreportecf]. _ .. ';· w _ ... ~ .... ~ '. '.,.. -··. 5

... · .. :. Based on the above decisions, there is. no dqubt that the Notice · of· Appeal filed in this Court by the appeiiant on 30/3/2015 is incurably defective for failing .to insert in it the correct registration . . ., . . . •,• . 1_ ... t , .... number of the case in the'first appellte.court ... ,, .... ·-·· ... ; ... , .. , , · In conclusion. therefore,. since the appeUanfs Notice of Appeal . , . .. . ' , . . . ~ in this appeal is incur.ably .defective "that_, renders the appeal incompetent. For being incompetent, w,e are constrained to, and we hereby strike it but. · : .· · · .... ,.' .. ·. ··::),:_:· ·-::·:· .. DATED at MBEYA this 5 th day of October,·2017. · K.-M. MUSSA JUSTICE OF APPEAL . :'.R/E: S. MZIRAY _ JUSTICE OF.J,PP,.f ::: :.:i ·• G. A. M. NDIKA•··· . . JY.,STl.E.:·9F:J\PPEA. :·•,( I certify th.at th.is, is a t.n1e copy of the original. · .. :.:,- >·. ;} i ( :··:.·· ..... · .. , ' ' ·------- ,c,:ro;;; •c.~--.·RA R · ... AL 6 ..... ;·:. ·.