Republic vs Mwesige Godfrey & Another (Criminal Appeal 355 of 2015) [2015] TZCA 264 (19 February 2015)

The case in question is a criminal appeal (No. 355 of 2014) in the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, involving The Republic versus Mwesige Geofrey and Tito Bushahu. The main issue revolves around the interpretation of sections 361(1)(a) and 379(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Cap. 20, specifically concerning the filing of a notice of intention to appeal.

The respondents had appealed a decision from the District Court of Ngara District to the High Court at Bukoba. However, the Republic lodged a preliminary objection, challenging the competence of the appeal on the grounds of "want of proper notice of intention to appeal" by respondent Tito Bushahu. The Republic argued that the notice of intention to appeal should be filed in the subordinate court, as per section 379(1)(a) of the CPA, while the respondents contended that section 361(1)(a) does not specify where the notice should be filed.

The High Court judge ruled in favour of the respondents, stating that the notice of intention to appeal under section 361(1)(a) could be filed either at the subordinate court or the High Court. The Republic appealed this ruling, leading to the current case.

The Court of Appeal, after considering the arguments and the language of the statute, decided to adopt a purposive approach to resolve the issue. The Court ruled that the words "to the trial subordinate court" should be inserted in section 361(1)(a) of the CPA to remove the ambiguity. However, the Court also stated that this amendment should become operative six months from the date of the judgment, allowing for those who had filed their notices in the High Court, like the respondent Tito Bushahu, to proceed with their appeals.

The Court's reasons for recommending this law reform were to bring certainty to the law, to avoid potential confusion, and to ensure that the law is applied consistently and logically. The Court did not find any error in law application in the High Court's ruling, but rather an omission in the law itself that needed to be addressed.