REPUBLIC v NELSON RUPIA 1993 TLR 44 (HC)

 

REPUBLIC v NELSON RUPIA 1993 TLR 44 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dar es Salaam

Judge Lugakingira J

F CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 17 OF 1991

11 June, 1991

Flynote

G Criminal Practice and procedure - Adjournments - Compliance with s 225(4) of

the Criminal Procedure Act, 1985.

-Headnote

At the expiration of an aggregate of sixty days the magistrate ordered another

adjournment although there was no certificate from the Regional Crimes Officer

stating the need and grounds for adjournment.

H Held: At the expiration of an aggregate sixty days and no certificate is filed by the

Regional Crimes Officer the court must either proceed to hear the case or discharge

the accused if the prosecution is unable to proceed with the hearing;

Case Information

I Order accordingly.

No case referred to.

1993 TLR p45

[zJDz]Judgment

Lugakingira J: On 18 August 1989 the accused was arraigned before the District court

at Kisutu on A a charge of stealing by public servant c/ss 265 and 270 of the Penal

Code. There has been no further progress in the case, the prosecution having

consistently claimed that investigations were not complete. Meanwhile, the

prosecution has been allowed to get away with adjournments as if no law B

governed the matter.

As provided under s 225(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985, it is unlawful with

certain offences to adjourn a case for an aggregate exceeding sixty days except under

the circumstances set out in paras (a), (b) and (c) thereof. These are: C

(a) At the expiration of an aggregate sixty days a case may lawfully be

adjourned for a further period not exceeding a similar aggregate if the Regional

Crimes Officer files a certificate in court stating the need and grounds for

adjournment. D

(b) At the expiration of the aggregate in (a) further adjournment not

exceeding the same aggregate has to be granted where a State Attorney files a similar

certificate.

(c) At the expiration of the aggregate in (b), and if the DPP files a similar

certificate, the court would further adjourn the case, but not for a period exceeding an

aggregate of twenty-four E months from the date of the first adjournment in (a).

When no certificate is filed ss (5) requires the court to proceed to hear the case or to

discharge the accused if the prosecution is unable to proceed with the hearing. F

These are mandatory provisions and the court has no discretion in the matter.

Adjournment granted in contravention of same is unlawful and, therefore, void.

In this case the accused was first brought to court and his plea taken on 18 August

1989. The court G had discretion to grant adjournments for an aggregate not

exceeding sixty days. Since no hearing intervened after the plea was taken, I reckon

that this aggregate was achieved by 17 October 1989. Beyond that date and since the

hearing did not then commence, further adjournment required the H certificate of

the Regional Crimes Officer. There was no such certificate and, interestingly, it is

precisely on that date that the presiding resident magistrate purported to order

further adjournment. I am satisfied that the order was unlawful and anything

thereafter was null and void.

I have asked myself whether the Regional Crimes Officer can be I

1993 TLR p46

A permitted to file a certificate now but the answer is no. There is no power to

allow such a procedure at this stage because the only course allowed to the court is to

proceed with the hearing or to discharge the accused. I therefore quash the

adjournment order made on 17 October 1989 and the subsequent proceedings and

direct the District Court to require the prosecution to call evidence B or to discharge

the accused if the prosecution is unable to do so immediately.

1993 TLR p46

D