IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF MUSOMA

AT MUSOMA

CONSOLIDATED CRIMINAL APPEALS NO. 17 AND 18 OF 2020

1. MARWA MWITA @ CHACHA............................. 1st APPELLANT

2. MARWA MWITA @ MTATIRO............................ 2nd APPELLANT
VERSUS

THE REPUBLIC.............................................................. RESPONDENT

(Appeal from the decision of the District Court of Serengeti at
Mugumu in Economic Case No. 154 of 2019)

RULING

4th and 4th May, 2021

KISANYA, J.:

This consolidated appeal finds its origin from the decision of the District Court

of Serengeti at Mugumu in Economic Case No. 154 of 2019. In its judgment

dated 25th November, 2020, the trial court convicted the appellants for

offences of unlawful entry into the game reserve, unlawful possession of

weapons in the game reserve and unlawful possession of government

trophies. The appellants were therefore sentenced to imprisonment for one

year, two years and twenty years for the first, second and third counts

respectively.

Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the appellants lodged separate

appeals which were merged into one appeal.

1
When the matter was called on for hearing today, both appellants appeared in

person. The respondent was represented by Mr. Nimrod Byamungu, learned

State Attorney.

Before commencing the hearing, Mr. Byamungu raised a preliminary objection

on a point of law that, the appeal was incompetent for being accompanied by

a notice of appeal filed out of time. As the practice demands, I was inclined to

address that issue before determining the appeal on merit.

Submitting in support of the preliminary objection, Mr. Byamungu argued

that, in terms of section 361(1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap. 20,

R.E. 2019], the appellants were required to lodge the notices of appeal within

ten days after the date of impugned judgment. However, he contended that

the appellants' notices of appeal were lodged fifteen days after the impugned

decision. Therefore, he implored the Court to strike the appeal for being

incompetent.

The appellants replied that their notices of appeal were filed in time and

asked me to hear and determine the appeal on merit.

Having heard the arguments for and against the preliminary objection, I

readily agree with Mr. Byamungu that the notices of intention to appeal were

filed out of time. The provisions of section 361( 1 )(a) of the Criminal Procedure

Act (supra) requires a person aggrieved by the decision of a subordinate court

2
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction to lodge the notice of intention to

appeal within ten days after the date of judgment, order or sentence.

Now, since the judgement subject to this appeal was delivered on 25.11.2020,

the appellants ought to have lodged their respective notice of appeal on or

before 05.12.2020. It is on record that the appellants' notices of appeal were

lodged 16 days after the date of impugned judgement, which is on the

11.12.2020.

The law is settled that an appeal which is not accompanied by a notice of

appeal cannot be heard and determined by the Court. Likewise, a notice of

appeal lodged out of time is not a valid notice. The appellants were required

to seek for extension of time within which to lodge the notice of appeal and

account for the delay.

All said and done, I find merit in the preliminary objection and uphold it.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby struck out for want of valid notice of

intention to appeal.