John Julius vs Director Of Public Prosecution (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 000009274 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 3098 (9 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 000009274 OF 2026 JOHN JULIUS .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT VERSUS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING NDUMBARO, J 04/06/2026 & 09/06/2026 NDUMBARO, J The applicant's affidavit was to the effect that he was convicted of the offence of rape contrary to 130 (1) (2) (e) and 131 (3) of the penal code, Cap 16 RE 2023, and sentenced to Life imprisonment. He lodged an appeal to this court on 17 November, 2025. The matter was fixed for hearing on 29 th December, 2025; he did not receive a summons; hence, he did not appear. As a result, his appeal was struck out for want of prosecution. Since he is a prisoner, his freedom is restricted to follow up on the same; made prayer that this court consider the restoration of his appeal. When the matter was called for hearing, the applicant was self- represented, and the respondent enjoyed the service of Naomi Mollell, Senior State Attorney. The matter was disposed of orally. The applicant has this to Hon. DAFINA NDUMBARO Page. 1

say: he failed to attend before the court because he did not receive a summons, and he was not brought before the court; hence, made prayer that his appeal be restored. The respondent did not object to the applicant's prayer. Having considering applicant affidavit and his submissions, which are to the effect that the reason of fairule to attend before the court during the hearing was that he was not issued with a summons, as a result, this court struck out his appeal for want of prosecution. Considering that the appellant is in prison and he is not in control of service of summons as well as receipt of document, it is my view that the one to be blamed is the prison office in charge of making follow-up court order; the blame should not be imposed on the appellant; and considering that the respondent did not oppose the application; I find no reasons to deny application. That said, the application is hereby granted; the applicant is to restore his appeal within 21 days from the day of pronouncing this ruling. It is so ordered Dated at ARUSHA this 9th of June 2026 . D. D NDUMBARO JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Hon. DAFINA NDUMBARO Page. 2