Yohana Masambai vs Republic (Misc. Criminal Application No. 5 of 1998) [1998] TZHC 2268 (31 August 1998)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 'r.r1.N2'ii.NI.h 1~. DODOMA MibC. CRIIvlIN . .i.L Af>PLICHTION NOo 5 OF 1998 (ORIGIN,J, CRIMINAL C .. SE NOo 16 OF: 19]7 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOOOM .. , i,T DOD01°iJ. YOHiN.i MiiiMBAl. ~ o e o •••••••• o ••• o. o, • • .APPLIC.1-1.Nr Versus THE REPUBLIC •••••••••••• o••·····••n••·RESl?ONDENT RULING MSOFFE, J.: In the District Court of Dodoma the respondent was charged with the offence of Cattle theft c/ss 268 cIDd 265 of The Penal Code. 11.fter a full trial he was acquitted. The applicant is . disatisfied and wishes to contest the acquittal. He has there- fore filed an application seeking that he be allowed to prose- cute the appeal instead of he Dixector of Public Prosecutions. -The respondent, may be because he is a layman, did not seek to ·. object the application. Mr. Kagaigai learned State Attorney has, however, appeared in opposition to th8 application. !n the applicant I s submission, after the said acquit tnl · he sought guidan.ce and assistance from the ,.,-:;-r;on::.Gj General ts Chambers. The 12.cter was not willing to 1:i:·us-=cute an appeal· against the re.spondent. The refusal was on account of the fact the said Chambers did not see any merit in appealing. In terms of s.52:0 of The Criminal Procedure 1-ct, 19.~~ "any person aggrieved by any finding, sentence or or<:•.:r 1:1':"-de by a subordinate courtao •••• •.. •" may appeal to this Court. In my understanding of this Section, in order to appeal the ag8Tieved person must have been a party to the case. In the instant cse the applicant was not a party to the caseL;u~~~ct of this appli- cation. The part:i.e,s '.,,):re the Republic and 1..c;j~io,, The npplicant was a mc:J:e witness. As such he certainly cannot appeal :.c-: he was not a party to· the caseo • 0 ./2. ... - .

. • 2 ·----1-n an.y __ 9_ase, the applicant has not cited any provision of law under which th~-applicat;i.on could be groundedo - ......... ---. The application has.no merit. It is accordingly dismissed,. J. Ho M.SOFFE JUDGE 31/8/1998 Delivered this 31 dny of August 1998 in the presence of the applicant, the respondent and li'.i:t. Kag:s,igai, State .i;.ttorney. J., H. I"iSOFFE JUDGE 31/8/1998 t