Isa Isa Liwangala and Another vs Republic (Misc. Criminal Application No. 000010660 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 2879 (3 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT LINDI MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 000010660 OF 2026 ISA ISA LIWANGALA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT AMINA RAMADHAN MUBA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING KAINDA, J The applicants, Isa Isa Liwangala and Amina Ramadhan Muba, moved this Court by way of Chamber Summons brought under Section 382(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, [ Cap. 20 R.E. 2023], seeking leave to lodge a Notice of Appeal and Petition of Appeal out of time against the judgment, conviction and sentence rendered in Criminal Case No. 201 of 2026 by the Resident Magistrates' Court of Lindi. When the application came up for hearing on 2 June 2026, Mr. Hilal Hamza, learned State Attorney, appeared for the respondent -Republic, while both applicants appeared in person, unrepresented. The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by the applicants wherein they depose that they were convicted of the offence of grievous harm contrary to Section 225 of the Penal Code and sentenced to serve six years imprisonment on 23 March 2026. They further aver that immediately after conviction they intended to exercise their right of appeal Hon. SYLVESTER KAINDA Page. 1

and prepared the necessary documents within time, but transmission of the same to the Court was delayed due to prison administrative procedures. They contend that all legal processes concerning prisoners are handled through prison authorities and that the delay was not occasioned by their own fault or negligence. They therefore pray for extension of time so as to enable them pursue their intended appeal. The Republic filed a counter affidavit opposing the application. At the hearing, Mr. Hilal Hamza submitted that the applicants have not placed before the Court sufficient material to demonstrate the exact steps taken by them within the prescribed period. He argued that extension of time is a discretionary remedy and that an applicant must provide a satisfactory and credible explanation for the delay. He accordingly urged the Court to dismiss the application. The applicants, appearing in person, maintained that they are prisoners and that once they prepared their documents, they depended entirely upon prison authorities for transmission to the Court. They submitted that they have an arguable appeal and should not be deprived of their constitutional and statutory right of appeal due to circumstances beyond their control. I have carefully considered the application, the affidavits on record, the submissions made by both sides and the law applicable. Section 382(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act empowers this Court, for good cause shown, to admit an appeal out of time. The principles governing extension of time are well settled. The applicant must satisfy the Court that there is a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the interests of justice warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion in his or her favour. The Court must also bear in mind that the right of appeal is an important legal right which should not be denied without good reason. Hon. SYLVESTER KAINDA Page. 2

The record before me shows that the applicants were convicted and sentenced on 23 March 2026. They are serving custodial sentences and were at all material times confined in prison. Their explanation is that the delay resulted from prison administrative procedures concerning preparation and transmission of legal documents. This explanation has not been disproved by any evidence showing that the applicants deliberately slept on their rights or acted negligently. It is a matter of common knowledge that prisoners have limited control over the movement and dispatch of court documents once such documents are handed over to prison authorities for transmission. I have also considered the judgment sought to be appealed against. Without making any definitive pronouncement on the merits of the intended appeal, which is a matter for the appellate court, I am satisfied that the applicants have demonstrated an intention to challenge both conviction and sentence. The law generally leans in favour of determining disputes on their merits rather than shutting out litigants on procedural grounds where a reasonable explanation has been offered. In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretion in favour of the applicants. No prejudice has been demonstrated by the respondent that cannot adequately be addressed through the normal appellate process. Accordingly, the application succeeds. Leave is hereby granted to the applicants to lodge their Notice of Appeal and Petition of Appeal out of time. The Notice of Appeal and Petition of Appeal shall be filed within Twenty-one (21) days from the date of this ruling. In default, the leave hereby granted shall lapse automatically unless otherwise extended by a competent court. It is so ordered. Hon. SYLVESTER KAINDA Page. 3

Dated at LINDI this 3rd of June 2026 . S. J KAINDA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Hon. SYLVESTER KAINDA Page. 4