Sailepo Langakwa vs Director Of Public Prosecution (MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 000009272 OF 2026) [2026] TZHC 3100 (9 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 000009272 OF 2026 SAILEPO LANGAKWA .............................. 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 unnatural offence contrary to 154 (1) (a) (2) of the penal code, Cap 16 RE 2023, and sentenced to Life imprisonment. He appealed to this court, and on 18/02, 2026, he was issued with an order to argue the appeal by way of written submission, whereby he was required to file a submission in chief on 03/03/2026 but he filed on 06/03/2023 beyond the ordered time; the applicant argued since he is prisoner he cannot control the movement of document; the one in control I s prison office; the submission was filed out of ordered time as a result, his appeal was struck out for want of prosecution. The applicant made a prayer that this court consider the restoration of his appeal. Hon. DAFINA NDUMBARO Page. 1

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 say: he failed to file a submission in chief; he was not having proceedings; hence, his appeal was struck out for want of prosecution; 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 file the submission in chief within time was that he was not in control of filling document since he is a prisoner, 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 filling the submission in the court online filling system rather prison office, it is my view that the one to be blamed is the prison office in charge of ensuring the application are filed as per 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 . Hon. DAFINA NDUMBARO Page. 2

D. D NDUMBARO JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Hon. DAFINA NDUMBARO Page. 3