DPP vs Hussein Hassan Ally & Another (Misc Criminal Cause No 22 of 1991) [1991] TZHC 2131 (31 July 1991)

/ ,l; LUGAKINGIRA,J: iHSC. CRIMINAL CAUSE Nu. 22 uF i 991 IN THE MATTER CF AW A?PLICJ.TION FOR APPEAL OUT OF TIM~ AND IN THE MATTl!:R OF CRIMINAL CllSE NJ. 547/90 .. IN THE DISTRicT COURT OF ILA1A DISTRICT AT KISUTU. D??. VERSUS HUSSEIN HASSA~ ALLY SHCKii.T SADIK. RULING I am not su:Trised that counsel for the Ilepublic could not reply to the submissions ·r,y counsel for the respondents. ·The application is indeed without subs tar.ce. In the aff~tavit the deponent stated, I quote, 11 ••• the delay in lodging this ap1eal was purely an intentional act of the prosecutor, . . which was aime,l at frustrating any effort by the D0P0Po to appeal against the decision." l,tr. 1wajasho for the respondents has submitted tha.t this is speculative. I agree, But is more than that. In so far as I am qoncerned there is no ·div:-.sion between the prosecutor and the D •. P.?. 1 so if the prosecutor intentionally delayed the appeal, it means the D.J?,.l?. intentionally delayed the app1,al, and s:o the D.P • .i?. cannot be h(,ard to complain against himself, It is therefore admitted that the delay ·ms without excuse. Se◊ondly, there is no point of law revealed in the proposed grounds of appeal as, in fact, what is a11ijded to, the idertify of the motor vehicle, is a point of faot. Finally, as pointed out by ivir. Mwa,jasho, th[: application is ·presumptuous. as it does not address itself to the fact that 111 notice of appeal has ever been.filed either. I dismiss the application. DAR ES SALAAM 31st July, 19)1 • ./ J ' t1 ~;;tr;GIRA JUDGE.