Asia Ally vs Republic (Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1999) [1999] TZHC 524 (21 May 1999)

234 TANZANIA LAW REPORTS [2000]T.L.R. In the final analysis we agree with the trial judge that the second will was valid. It was made by a capable person; it was not influenced by any delusions; it was properly executed. The burden cast upon the respondent/plaintiff had therefore been discharged. ASIA ALLY v. REPUBLIC c HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DARES SALAAM D (Bubeshi, J) CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6 OF 1999 (From the decision of the District Court of Morogoro at Morogoro in Criminal Case E No. 66 of 1999) Criminal Practice and Procedure - Plea - Change of plea - Accused pleaded guilty and then requests to change plea — Whether the court may reject the p request. The applicant was brought before the District Court Magistrate and charged and facts of the charge were read to her and she pleaded guilty. The Court adjourned proceedings for two days; when she was brought to Court after the two days for G sentence, she expressly requested the court to change her plea to that of not guilty. The Court did not allow and proceeded to sentence her. Held: The trial court erred to proceed to sentence the applicant in view of her clear intention to change her plea. H Conviction quashed Cases referred to: (1) Kamundi v. Republic [1973] EA 540 I (2) Wanjini v. Republic [1975] EA 5

ASIA ALLY v. REPUBLIC 235 Statutory provision referred to: A (i) Civil Procedure Act 1985, sections 374, 373 Mr. Kamugisha, for the republic D RULING (Delivered 21 May 1999) BUBESHI, J.: The respondent appeared in Court on 8 February 1999, C where after the charge was read over to her she stated. “ It is true ” and a plea of guilty recorded. The Public Prosecutor read out the facts and the respondent is recorded to have agreed to the facts as narrated. The trial court then convicted the respondent accordingly. D She was allowed to mitigate and the matter adjourned for sentencing. ’ On 10 February 1999, the respondent stated that she was changing her plea to one of “ not guilty ” . The trial court, after hearing the public prosecutor, was not impressed and proceeded to sentence the respondent. Mr Kamugisha, learned State Attorney appeared before the court in terms of section 374 of the Civil Procedure Act 1985. He was of - I* the view that the trial court erred in law when it proceeded to sentence the respondent after she had indicated her change of plea. I have carefully examined this case and I am inclined to agree with what Mr Kamugisha has stated. The current position is that a g Court has power to alter a plea at any time before sentence is passed. This was stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Kamundi v. Republic (1) a decision also followed in the case of Wanjiru v. Republic (2). H It follows therefore that the trial court erred to have proceeded to sentence the respondent in view of her clear intentions to change her plea. I

236 TANZANIA LAW REPORTS [2000]T.L.R. A In the premises, in exercise of powers conferred upon me by section 373 of the Civil Procedure Act 1985, 1 quash the proceedings and set aside conviction and sentence and order for a retrial of the respondent. B TANZANIA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES c LIMITED u DR. EPHRAIM NJAU (NUMBER 2) COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA D (Mfalila, Samatta and Lugakingira, JJ. A.) CIVIL APPEAL No. 6 OF 1998 (From the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, Munuo, J., dated 23 August 1996, in Civil Case No.3 of 1993) Labour Law — Appointment in subsidiary companies — Subsidiary company only F recommends appointment but actual appointment is made by the Holding Corporation - Whether contract of employment was made with the subsidiary company. Labour Law - Holding Corporation which is the appointing authority transfers G an employee from its one subsidiary company to another — Whether transfer is implicit - Whether transfer constituted breach of contract of employment. Labour Law - Damages arising out of termination of contract of employment - Whether payable by a subsidiary company with which employee worked. H The respondent, Mr Ephraim Njau, successfully sued the appellant company in the High Court at Arusha. Before the High Court, it was contended by Mr Njau that the appellant company ’ s Board of Directors appointed him the company ’ s general manager with effect from 3 October 1983. That he worked in this capacity until 30November 1992 when the National Chemical Industries Limited, the holding corporation of the