Court name
Court of Appeal of Tanzania

D.P.P. vs Jumanne Rajabu () [1988] TZCA 16 (06 August 1988);

Law report citations
1988 TLR 144 (TZCA)
Media neutral citation
[1988] TZCA 16

Omar, Makame and Kisanga, JJ.A.:  This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the ruling of the High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Cause No. 1 H of 1987, which discharged Respondent Jumanne Rajabu from the case of murder facing him. Repondent's six co-accused awaiting P.I. like Rajabu were also ordered to be discharged.
Appellant Republic represented by Mr. Tendwa, learned State Attorney, in arguing his grounds of appeal said that discharge was confined to trial only and there was no trial at I the District Court, only adjournments for more than a year. The Magistrate could not

OMAR JJA, MAKAME JJA AND KISANGA JJA
have discharged the accused person under section 225 (5) Criminal Procedure Act A because there was no trial and the offence of murder is not triable by him. And High Court cannot act under section 225 (5) Criminal Procedure Act because this provision concerns trials by subordinate Courts (See part VII of the Criminal Procedure Act). B High Court has inherent powers to grant bail but there was no "information" before the High Court, therefore the case was not ready for trial yet.
Mr. Kwikima learned Counsel for the respondent who made his first application to the District Court and then appealed to the High Court against the ruling of the District Court C admitted that for him it was a shot in the dark because he felt if the investigations were not ready or were dragging on indefinitely the accused person cannot be made to suffer being in remand indefinitely. The Court must have powers to rescue the accused person faced with this situation. D
We are of the considered view that the Republic can be persuaded by the Court to withdraw the charge against the accused if investigations are not ready and the accused is unduly kept in remand custody. But to invoke section 225(5) of Criminal Procedure Act for this purpose is to misconstrue the meaning of this section. Neither the High Court E nor the District Court in the circumstances of this case could have used this particular provision of the law.
We order that the respondent who had been wrongly discharged be arrested and remanded in custody together with his six co-accused so that they may await their trial in this case. F
Appeal allowed.

A