Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Di R Ect Orofpubl I CPR Osecut I Onsv - Daudipet E (1993) Tlr22

    Uploaded by

    Eldard Kafula
    3 views1 page
    This case held that section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act 1967 as amended by section 6 of Act 40 of 1974 was unconstitutional. The Republic failed to show how the section was saved by constitutional provisions allowing derogation from basic human rights. Section 148(5)(e) was also found to violate Article 15(2)(a) of the Constitution and was therefore struck from the statute book unless saved by derogation clauses, which permit certain limitations on individual rights. Ultimately, the court agreed with the lower court that section 148(5)(e) was unconstitutional and struck it down, meaning courts had discretion to grant bail to accused persons as the law previously stood before enactment of that section.

    Original Description:

    Cases on contract law

    Original Title

    CASES

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case held that section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act 1967 as amended by section 6 of Act 40 of 1974 was unconstitutional. The Republic failed to show how the section was saved by constitutional provisions allowing derogation from basic human rights. Section 148(5)(e) was also found to violate Article 15(2)(a) of the Constitution and was therefore struck from the statute book unless saved by derogation clauses, which permit certain limitations on individual rights. Ultimately, the court agreed with the lower court that section 148(5)(e) was unconstitutional and struck it down, meaning courts had discretion to grant bail to accused persons as the law previously stood before enactment of that section.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views1 page

    Di R Ect Orofpubl I CPR Osecut I Onsv - Daudipet E (1993) Tlr22

    Uploaded by

    Eldard Kafula
    This case held that section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act 1967 as amended by section 6 of Act 40 of 1974 was unconstitutional. The Republic failed to show how the section was saved by constitutional provisions allowing derogation from basic human rights. Section 148(5)(e) was also found to violate Article 15(2)(a) of the Constitution and was therefore struck from the statute book unless saved by derogation clauses, which permit certain limitations on individual rights. Ultimately, the court agreed with the lower court that section 148(5)(e) was unconstitutional and struck it down, meaning courts had discretion to grant bail to accused persons as the law previously stood before enactment of that section.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Kukut

    iaOl
    ePumbun&Anot
    herv
    .At
    tor
    neyGener
    al&Anot
    her
    (1993)TLR159
    HELD
    "
    The
    ref
    ore
    ,unl
    iket
    hel
    ear
    nedJ
    udgef
    rom who
    mthi
    sappe
    ala
    ris
    es,wef
    indt
    hatS6oft
    he
    Go ve
    rnmen tPr
    oceedi
    ngsAct1 967a samende
    dbys6o fAct40of197 4isunconst
    it
    utionalf
    or
    thereas
    onsweh a
    veamplyd emon st
    rat
    edabove.TheRe publ
    icha
    stota
    llyfai
    ledtoshowt ha
    tthe
    sai
    ds ec
    ti
    oni ssave
    dbyt heprovis
    ionsoftheCon s
    tit
    uti
    onwhichall
    owf order
    ogati
    onfromba s
    ic
    huma nri
    ghts.I
    nthecir
    cumstancesweha venoa l
    ter
    nati
    vebuttohol
    d,inter
    mso fart
    icl
    e64(5)of
    theConsti
    tuti
    onoftheUn i
    tedRe publi
    cofTanzaniatha
    ts6o ftheGovernmentProce
    edingsAct
    1967 asame nd
    edby Ac
    t40o
    f197 sv
    4i oi
    d.I
    tisa
    cco
    rdi
    ngl
    yst
    ruc
    kdown f
    orb
    ein
    g
    uncons
    ti
    tut
    iona
    l.
    "

    Di
    rec
    torofPubl
    icPr
    ose
    cut
    ionsv.Da
    udiPe
    te(
    1993)TLR22

    HELD
    "
    Thi
    sma
    rkst
    hee
    ndho
    weve
    r,whe
    nal
    liss
    aida
    nddo
    ne,wef
    indt
    hatt
    hepr
    ovi
    si
    onsofs1
    48(
    5)e
    )
    a
    revi
    ola
    tiv
    eofa
    rti
    cle15
    (2)
    (a)oft
    heCon
    sti
    tut
    ion.Tot
    hee
    xte
    ntt
    hats148(
    5)(
    e)vi
    ola
    test
    he
    Con st
    itution,i two uldben ulla ndvoi dint e r
    mso fa r
    ti
    cle64(5
    )ofth eCo ns
    ti
    tuti
    on ,unl
    e s
    sitis
    savedbyt heg ener
    ald er
    ogationc lauses,th atis,arti
    cle30a nd31 ,whichp ermi t
    sc ert
    ain
    derogationsf r
    omt heba s
    icri
    g ht
    soft heindividual.
    Int hef i
    n ala na l
    ysisthere
    fore,butf o
    rdi f
    fer e
    n treas
    ons,wea greewi t
    hMwa lusanyaJt hats
    148(5)(e)i su nconstit
    uti
    onalandi st her
    efores tr
    uckou tofthestat
    uteboo kofthec ountry.This
    mea nst h
    a tthec ourt
    sha ved i
    scret
    iont og ra
    ntb ai
    ltop er
    sonsaccusedoftheoffenc esspecif
    ied
    unders1 48 (5)(e)ina ccor
    dancewi t
    ht helawa sitexis
    tedbefor
    etheenactmentofs14 8(5)(
    e )
    .This
    dis
    c r
    etiono ugh talwa ystob ee xercis
    edj udiciall
    ybyt hec our
    tstakingintoac c
    ountbot hthe
    int
    erestso fthei ndivi
    dual,andthecommuni tyofwhi c
    htheindivi
    dualisapart.
    Thuswed i
    smi ssth eappeal.Sincet herespo ndentisalre
    adyaf re
    ema n,wema kenoor derin
    res
    pe ctofh im. "

    You might also like