Ibrahim S/O Said @ Maalim vs The Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 79 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 94 (10 November 2000)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COUf/T OJ! 11:'ANZANI).
MISC:jLLANLOUS CEIMINi..L lL?I'LIC.NrION NOo 79 OF 2000
IN THE MNI1TJm OH AN AIYLIC tJ'ION FOR LEAVI~ TO
APPEAL OUT OF TIM-,
Ii. N D
IN ·I'HIG MLTTl.GR OF CRIMINAL CASE NO o 3 OF 1998
IN TF...E Dr::TRIC'I' COUPT 0:8' MW/U'1"ZA DISTRICT AT
IBRAHIM ,S/0 SAID @ MAALIM o " " o ., ~ ,. ,, , ., , o •• .., .111-TLICANT
VER.3U:3
THE REPUBLIC , , " .., , ,, ., .., o o RESPONDENT
RULING
MROSO~ JUDGE"
----·.·---c.·•··--··. -
This is an application for leave to apeal out of time
against a ruling of the Couct of' · until 2/5/2000 he .bad not
filed bi::::: appeal to the Eigh Court.. He filed the present_
ap-plicationo 'l'he main reason whic'J he f.I·ives for the dela.y is,.,er-::-l(ent MJ.gistrate which
was given 01-: 28th July
9
'19990 rI'b::? e.pplicant together with
another have a pending Criminal Oe,se lfo o 3 of 1_ 998 in the
Court of .Resident Magistrate at Viw2nza .. in ·which they are
being prosecuted fo:c the offenceD of rcbbery and causing
grievous bodily barmo In tbe course of the trial before
Go Jo Kad.asso, Resident I
1
'.Bf:?ist:c2.te the applicant apparently lost
confidence in the impartiality of the magistrate and asked
him to disqualify himself from trying the casea The learned
magistrate wcote a. rulin:::; in which he· refused to accede to
informed the trial court tl);Jt he intended to appeal to the
High Court against itr:: :cu.ling: a On 9th Novert1ber 'J 1999 a copy
of the court ruling -;,r::J.s SU}tPli-:,,d. to :):-1_.2 0..pplic:311t.. He says in
.his .a;ff~~davit however that l1e ;;officially received" the
rulinc; on 28/'12/990 Even so
2
,-
as ,be put ·it,
11
the deli berate lmrr:)r co1JJ·t' :; decision to
send me in time a. copy o:t it;:; r:uJ:.i:9;rr t.o enable me to
submit my appeal in time·,:i.,
-";. ', .,:,:::·. 1.
(_:•- .. :. Wi"t:h +£:_f;ipe.ct;••lhat cfrnr:.ot he t\1e reason for his
failure to f:i,.le lis appeal in time~ ,:fter he received a
copy of the lo'lfrr ·c6i1rt' s ruling
9
whetlw:c on 9th November,
1999 or on 28th December., '1999 when he :·•officia1ly;j received
, ,. __ ·- .....
whatever
it', L exactly that means a {hat J_S the explainatio_n
for the delay upto 2/5/2000 vlfben he .filed the present
application in ·tbr~ High Court~ ;Ji.nee there is no justifiable
cause foc tlw d(?lay
9
the applicc.1..tion must fail o
II;ven if the applicant w2re to give good cause for the
delay? there is the question whethe:c the High Court would
take cogniz:anc e of the a ppcs 1 ,::_t t
1
,.e p3:esent stage of
the proceedings in the lmJC::r com:,., The trial has stalled
after only tv.ro prosecution vJj_tnr::issesgavc evidence because
the lower couct rrcord has 1."iad to b,-=: called to th~ High
Court b::cause of this application.,
The practice is that a c:ciminal trial will not be
,.
interrupted to allow for an appeal on an interlocutory
ruling of the trial courto Seem MICHAEL Ma LB0P0LD Vo
R /:f97fl LRT no o 1 and r-1ABP.UK ;J/0 ORONGAI V,. REX /19L~§71
TLR (R) 3110
220 a
I BDA.-..,. , 1-T nn--,-~,qT v-, --y--·,•,·-.r--,..,. 1n .r>ro7r7 m-R 4c
- an .. /1.. . liJ .. di..L~ h;;)IJ1•1..L
) 0 hlJ:-'tJ.1.Ji..i .. U L I J ~ l'li_ ., Ilo _; cited by the applica.nt are not :Juthority t!J.at tricil proceedinf:':S in a criminal c::rne c~u1 be stayed pending appeal on an interlocutory mattero For the above reasorn3 the application fe:ils"
•. I
: ' _. - '.· \
2 '
illllllediatelY for the trial to ,proceed.
{
v,,,,··
~ '.
I
'.
l
. L,
J., Ao ViROSO
,.
.,...., - ,, ..
;:,;,:j .:to•.
I
, .