Wrong citation is curable unless the person pleading it establishes that he was prejudiced

[Zakaria Maseke]

Soma kesi ya REPUBLIC Vs FREEMAN AIKAEL MBOWE na wenzake watatu, Kesi ya uhujumu uchumi namba 16 of 2021.

Summary By, Zakaria Maseke

Kwenye hii kesi, prosecution walikosea, citation ya Sheria kwenye certificate of seizure (HATI YA KUCHUKUA MALI), wakaandika kwamba , imetolewa chini ya kifungu 38(3) cha Sheria ya Mwenendo wa Makosa ya Jinai Sura ya 20 ya mwaka 1985, Iliyorekebishwa mwaka 2018

Wakati kimsingi hakuna marekebisho yoyote yaliyofanyika mwaka 2018 kwenye hicho kifungu, marekebisho ya mwisho yalifanyika mwaka 1993.

Prosecution walipotaka kuitoa hati hiyo kama kielelezo Mahakamani, wakapigwa P.O. kwamba document wanayotaka ku tender haiwezi kupokelewa kwa sababu wame cite non existing law (sheria ambayo haipo).

Mahakama ikauliza maana ya haya maneno “iliyorekebishwa mwaka 2018”, kwa kiingereza.

Mawakili wengi wakawa wanasema hiyo ni Revised Edition of 2018 wengine wanasema inamaanisha "As amended in 2018"

Mahakama ikatafuta Kamusi ya Kiswahili na Kiingereza ya TUKI, ingawa Jaji hakupata moja kwa moja maana ya neno "iliyorekebishwa", ila alikuta maana ya neno "rekebisha" ambalo kwa kiingereza inamaanisha "Adjust" or "Amend" na "rekebishwa" inamaanisha "Adjusted" or "Amended".

Kwa hiyo Mahakama ikasema neno, "iliyorekebishwa", literally ina maana kwamba, "which was adjusted" or "which was amended" or "As amended".

Hivyo Mahakama ikasema, lugha iliyotumika kwenye hiki kielelezo cha certificate of seizure haimaanishi Revised Edition of 2018, ila inamaanisha "as amended in 2018".

Hata hivyo swali la msingi likabaki pale pale, kwamba hakuna marekebisho yaliyofanyika kwenye hiyo section mwaka 2018, je hii ina effects gani? Je itakua sahihi kusema hiyo ni wrong citation of the law?

Jaji akasema as a general rule, wrong citation of the law renders the motion advanced defective.

“I entirely agree that wrong citation of the enabling provision renders the application incompetent.

(Ila akasema, kuna exception).

This is a general principle, but “it does not apply similarly in every circumstance, for the simple reasons that its application depends on a number of the factors."

Akasema, “the current position of the law is that, not every non citation or wrong citation of the law crumbles the motion.

The introduction of overriding objective principle as introduced by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Act, 2018 [ACT No. 8 of 2018] which now requires the Courts to deal with cases justly, and to have regard to substantive justice; the new principle of the "prejudice" has been enunciated.

“A mere complaint by a party to the case that there is non citation or wrong citation of the law or even non compliance of the law is not enough, THAT PERSON NEEDS TO GO A STEP FURTHER, AND ESTABLISH THAT HE WAS PREJUDICED by such non citation or wrong citation or non compliance.”

Kwa hiyo Ingawa prosecution walikosea citation, Mahakama Kuu ikasema, “there is no evidence that wrong citation has in any way prejudiced the accused" , Mahakama ika overrule objection na kuendelea kupokea (ku admit) kile kielelezo (certificate of seizure).

*Imeandaliwa na kuletwa kwako nami zakariamaseke@gmail.com
(0754575246 - WhatsApp)

 

[Retired]

Asante sana kwa maelezo mazuri! Nisaidie basi hili: Time barred appeal inakuwa dismissed au strike out. Najua strike out ni kuwa it is as if it never existed and therefore you start afresh.

Sasa Court of appeal rules, rule 90 (1) if not complied with kesi inakuwa dismissed au strike out. Nauliza hivyo kwa mana kuna majaji wengine wana strike out wengine wana dismiss. Which is which?

 

[sajo]

Asante sana kwa maelezo mazuri! Nisaidie basi hili: Time barred appeal inakuwa dismissed au strike out. Najua strike out ni kuwa it is as if it never existed and therefore you start afresh.

Sasa Court of appeal rules, rule 90 (1) if not complied with kesi inakuwa dismissed au strike out. Nauliza hivyo kwa mana kuna majaji wengine wana strike out wengine wana dismiss. Which is which?

Kwa mujibu wa Kanuni za CAT na kwa mujibu wa kesi mbalimbali za CAT, Rule 90 (1) inapokuwa haijatekelezwa, Appeal inakuwa time barred kwa kuwa inakuwa imefailiwa nje ya siku 60. Matokeo ya hiyo time barred inakuwa ni kustrike out hiyo Appeal. Binafsi sijapata kuona maamuzi ya kuwa appeal ambayo imefunguliwa kinyume na Kanuni ya 90 (1) iwe dismissed.

 

[Retired]

Kwa mujibu wa Kanuni za CAT na kwa mujibu wa kesi mbalimbali za CAT, Rule 90 (1) inapokuwa haijatekelezwa, Appeal inakuwa time barred kwa kuwa inakuwa imefailiwa nje ya siku 60. Matokeo ya hiyo time barred inakuwa ni kustrike out hiyo Appeal. Binafsi sijapata kuona maamuzi ya kuwa appeal ambayo imefunguliwa kinyume na Kanuni ya 90 (1) iwe dismissed.

Asante sana. Nitakuwekea kesi kama bili zinazotoa utata huo. Ubarikiwe!
Naomba mrejesho

 

[sajo]

Asante sana. Nitakuwekea kesi kama bili zinazotoa utata huo. Ubarikiwe!
Naomba mrejesho

Mkuu ahsante sana kwa kesi hizo. Nimezisoma na kuona mchanganyo walioufanya wazee wa CAT. Kimsingi, sababu ya wao kustrike out appeal iliyo nje ya muda wanasema ni kwa sababu inakuwa ni incompetent - hauwezi kudismiss an incompetent appeal, appeal inayokuwa dismissed ni ile itayokuwa imesikilizwa on merit. Hii waliyodismiss walijichanganya - inatakiwa ifanyiwe review suo motto wafute hiyo position.

 

[Retired]

hauwezi kudismiss an incompetent appeal, appeal inayokuwa dismissed ni ile itayokuwa imesikilizwa on merit.

exctly! nadhani kuna kujichanganya! Anyway mtu anaweza kumwandikia CJ and hopefully he will act accordingly

 

[Smart911]

Ahsante kwa taarifa...

 

[Numbisa]

Nice

 

[Makanyaga]

Soma kesi ya REPUBLIC Vs FREEMAN AIKAEL MBOWE na wenzake watatu, Kesi ya uhujumu uchumi namba 16 of 2021.

Summary By, Zakaria Maseke

Kwenye hii kesi, prosecution walikosea, citation ya Sheria kwenye certificate of seizure (HATI YA KUCHUKUA MALI), wakaandika kwamba , imetolewa chini ya kifungu 38(3) cha Sheria ya Mwenendo wa Makosa ya Jinai Sura ya 20 ya mwaka 1985, Iliyorekebishwa mwaka 2018

Wakati kimsingi hakuna marekebisho yoyote yaliyofanyika mwaka 2018 kwenye hicho kifungu, marekebisho ya mwisho yalifanyika mwaka 1993.

Prosecution walipotaka kuitoa hati hiyo kama kielelezo Mahakamani, wakapigwa P.O. kwamba document wanayotaka ku tender haiwezi kupokelewa kwa sababu wame cite non existing law (sheria ambayo haipo).

Mahakama ikauliza maana ya haya maneno “iliyorekebishwa mwaka 2018”, kwa kiingereza.

Mawakili wengi wakawa wanasema hiyo ni Revised Edition of 2018 wengine wanasema inamaanisha "As amended in 2018"

Mahakama ikatafuta Kamusi ya Kiswahili na Kiingereza ya TUKI, ingawa Jaji hakupata moja kwa moja maana ya neno "iliyorekebishwa", ila alikuta maana ya neno "rekebisha" ambalo kwa kiingereza inamaanisha "Adjust" or "Amend" na "rekebishwa" inamaanisha "Adjusted" or "Amended".

Kwa hiyo Mahakama ikasema neno, "iliyorekebishwa", literally ina maana kwamba, "which was adjusted" or "which was amended" or "As amended".

Hivyo Mahakama ikasema, lugha iliyotumika kwenye hiki kielelezo cha certificate of seizure haimaanishi Revised Edition of 2018, ila inamaanisha "as amended in 2018".

Hata hivyo swali la msingi likabaki pale pale, kwamba hakuna marekebisho yaliyofanyika kwenye hiyo section mwaka 2018, je hii ina effects gani? Je itakua sahihi kusema hiyo ni wrong citation of the law?

Jaji akasema as a general rule, wrong citation of the law renders the motion advanced defective.

“I entirely agree that wrong citation of the enabling provision renders the application incompetent.

(Ila akasema, kuna exception).

This is a general principle, but “it does not apply similarly in every circumstance, for the simple reasons that its application depends on a number of the factors."

Akasema, “the current position of the law is that, not every non citation or wrong citation of the law crumbles the motion.

The introduction of overriding objective principle as introduced by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Act, 2018 [ACT No. 8 of 2018] which now requires the Courts to deal with cases justly, and to have regard to substantive justice; the new principle of the "prejudice" has been enunciated.

“A mere complaint by a party to the case that there is non citation or wrong citation of the law or even non compliance of the law is not enough, THAT PERSON NEEDS TO GO A STEP FURTHER, AND ESTABLISH THAT HE WAS PREJUDICED by such non citation or wrong citation or non compliance.”

Kwa hiyo Ingawa prosecution walikosea citation, Mahakama Kuu ikasema, “there is no evidence that wrong citation has in any way prejudiced the accused" , Mahakama ika overrule objection na kuendelea kupokea (ku admit) kile kielelezo (certificate of seizure).

*Imeandaliwa na kuletwa kwako nami zakariamaseke@gmail.com
(0754575246 - WhatsApp)

Kama una jinai, sheria iliyokosewa kunukuliwa haimwoondolei jinai the accused kwa sababu kitakachofanyika baada ya hapo, ni citation sahihi kuwa effected tu halafu mambo yanaendelea kama yalivyokuwa kuanzia pale.
Ni kama ilivyo kwa upande ule mwingine kwamba mtuhumiwa kufanya kosa kwa kutokujua kuwa ni kosa kisheria, hakumuondolei jinai

 

[sajo]

Kama una jinai, sheria iliyokosewa kunukuliwa haimwoondolei jinai the accused kwa sababu kitakachofanyika baada ya hapo, ni citation sahihi kuwa effected tu halafu mambo yanaendelea kama yalivyokuwa kuanzia pale.
Ni kama ilivyo kwa upande ule mwingine kwamba mtuhumiwa kufanya kosa kwa kutokujua kuwa ni kosa kisheria, hakumuondolei jinai

Mkuu, inategemeana na namna kifungu kilivyokosewa na kuangalia kama kinaathiri ushahidi au la. Mfano amekamatwa mtu akiwa anasafirisha wahamiaji wasio na vibali vya kuingia nchini, mtu huyo akashtakiwa kwa kwa kosa la kusafirisha wahamiaji haramu(illegal iimigrants) ila kifungu kikawekwa cha kusafirisha wahamiaji wasioruhusiwa (prohibited immigrants) na ushahidi ukatolewa wa kuhusu wahamiaji wasioruhusiwa huku mashtaka wakijua vichwani mwao kuwa wanazungumzia wahamiaji haramu. Mwisho wa ushahidi haitaweza kusemwa kuwa mashtaka walithibitisha kosa bila chembe ya shaka, mshtakiwa ataachiwa huru kwa uzembe uliofanywa kwa kuweka kifungu kisicho sahihi.

 

[Makanyaga]

Mkuu, inategemeana na namna kifungu kilivyokosewa na kuangalia kama kinaathiri ushahidi au la. Mfano amekamatwa mtu akiwa anasafirisha wahamiaji wasio na vibali vya kuingia nchini, mtu huyo akashtakiwa kwa kwa kosa la kusafirisha wahamiaji haramu(illegal iimigrants) ila kifungu kikawekwa cha kusafirisha wahamiaji wasioruhusiwa (prohibited immigrants) na ushahidi ukatolewa wa kuhusu wahamiaji wasioruhusiwa huku mashtaka wakijua vichwani mwao kuwa wanazungumzia wahamiaji haramu. Mwisho wa ushahidi haitaweza kusemwa kuwa mashtaka walithibitisha kosa bila chembe ya shaka, mshtakiwa ataachiwa huru kwa uzembe uliofanywa kwa kuweka kifungu kisicho sahihi.

BADO jinai itakuwa IPO kwa mshtakiwa, japo kaachiwa huru

 

[sajo]

BADO jinai itakuwa IPO kwa mshtakiwa, japo kaachiwa huru

Sasa si itakuwa tayari mahakama imewaelekeza serikali nini cha kufanya.

 

[Makanyaga]

Sasa si itakuwa tayari mahakama imewaelekeza serikali nini cha kufanya.

Mahakaama na Serikali hawatakiwi kufanya kazi kama wapinzani; bali wanatakiwa ku-complement each other kwa maslahi mapana ya nchi

 

[sajo]

Mahakaama na Serikali hawatakiwi kufanya kazi kama wapinzani; bali wanatakiwa ku-complement each other kwa maslahi mapana ya nchi

Wanasheria tunasema kuwa, jukumu la mahakama ni kuhakikisha wale tu wanaokutwa na hatia pasipo chembe ya shaka wanaadhibiwa, na sio kazi yake kutengeneza mazingira ili chembe yenye shaka iweze kuzibwa / kurekebishwa. Izingatiwe wanaotakiwa kuthibitisha mashtaka pasipo kuacha chembe ya shaka ni Jamhuri. Chembe ndogo tu ya shaka ikionekana basi mshtakiwa anatakiwa kwenda nyumbani akiwa mtu huru

 

[Makanyaga]

Wanasheria tunasema kuwa, jukumu la mahakama ni kuhakikisha wale tu wanaokutwa na hatia pasipo chembe ya shaka wanaadhibiwa, na sio kazi yake kutengeneza mazingira ili chembe yenye shaka iweze kuzibwa / kurekebishwa. Izingatiwe wanaotakiwa kuthibitisha mashtaka pasipo kuacha chembe ya shaka ni Jamhuri. Chembe ndogo tu ya shaka ikionekana basi mshtakiwa anatakiwa kwenda nyumbani akiwa mtu huru

Nadhani kuna exception katika hili; assuming mtuhumiwa alichoma moto mahakama, au alivamia nyumbani kwa mmojawapo wa watumishi wa mhimili wa mahakama halafu akavujna na kuiba na kufanya pia mambo mengine yanayofanana na hayo, halafu kwa bahati mbaya case yake ikaja ikaangukia kwenye wrong citation, huku Judge akiwa anamfaamu mtumishi mwenake aliyefanyiwa unyama huo. Niambie kama hapa huyu mtu bado anaweza akaendelea kupata favoruor ya wrong citation

Ukiangalia vizuri, tatizo letu sisi wanadamu kwenye matumiizi ya Sheria liliharibiwa na Kaini, pale mwanzo kabisa wakati wa Agano la Kale. Kaini anamuua ndugu yake Habili kutokana na wivu wa sadaka zake yeye Kaini kutokupokelewa na Mungu, ilhali za Habili zimepokelewa vizuri na Mungu amezifurahia sana.
Baada ya hapo, Mungu anamfuata Kaini na kumuuliza kuwa yuko wapi Habili ndugu yako, halafu Kaini anamjibu Mungu anamwambia "SIJUI, MIMI NI MLINZI WA NDUGU YANGU"
Mpaka hapa;
Kisheria Kaini alikuwa sahihi asilimia 500%
Kiubinadamu, Kaini alikuwa wrong asilimia hasi 5000 (-5000%)

Katika hali ya kawaida, ubinadamu unatakiwa utangulie kwanza, halafu sheria ndiyo ifuate na si sheria itangulie halafu ubinadamu nyuma

 

[sajo]

Niambie kama hapa huyu mtu bado anaweza akaendelea kupata favoruor ya wrong citation

Ikiwa muamuzi ana maslahi na kesi, inapaswa ajitoe kuisikiliza, ilab hata akiisikiliza itapaswa aiamue kwa haki na sio kwa upendeleo. Mfano, hakimu awe ni jirani aliyeshuhudia mshtakiwa akimpiga mwenye nyumba, ila mahakamani mshtakiwa anasema hakumpiga mwenyenyumba, huyu hakimu hawezi kusema kuwa "ulimpiga kwa sababu hata mimi nilishuhudia", atapaswa kutoa uamuzi kwa kupima ushahidi uliotolewa na sio maslahi au hisia.

Katika hali ya kawaida, ubinadamu unatakiwa utangulie kwanza, halafu sheria ndiyo ifuate na si sheria itangulie halafu ubinadamu nyuma

Ni kweli mkuu. Ila sasa dunia inaendeshwa kwa mifumo ya kisheria, kiuchumi nk, ubinadamu unawekwa pembeni, sheria ndio inazingatiwa.

Form 1 kwenye civics tunafundishwa tofauti ya moral rights na legal rights.

 

[Makanyaga]

Ikiwa muamuzi ana maslahi na kesi, inapaswa ajitoe kuisikiliza, ilab hata akiisikiliza itapaswa aiamue kwa haki na sio kwa upendeleo. Mfano, hakimu awe ni jirani aliyeshuhudia mshtakiwa akimpiga mwenye nyumba, ila mahakamani mshtakiwa anasema hakumpiga mwenyenyumba, huyu hakimu hawezi kusema kuwa "ulimpiga kwa sababu hata mimi nilishuhudia", atapaswa kutoa uamuzi kwa kupima ushahidi uliotolewa na sio maslahi au hisia.


Ni kweli mkuu. Ila sasa dunia inaendeshwa kwa mifumo ya kisheria, kiuchumi nk, ubinadamu unawekwa pembeni, sheria ndio inazingatiwa.

Form 1 kwenye civics tunafundishwa tofauti ya moral rights na legal rights.

In some cases, legal rights are the worst case scenerios kwa sababu huwa zinauondoa utu wa mtu na kumfanya aonekane ni mnyama. Chukulia scenerio umenikopesha fedha tukiwa wawili na hatukuandikishana, kwa makubaliano kuwa nitakurudishia lakini nikaamua kukunyima na kukana kuwa hukunikopesha. Chances ni kwamba ukiamua kwenda mahakamani, ninaweza kukushinda kesi vibaya sana, huku nikiwa nimedhalilisha utu wangu mimi mwenyewe na utu wako vile vile, ikiwa ni pamoja na kutengeneza uadui ambao unaweza ukapropagate kwenye familia zetu na hata ndugu zetu pia.
In some cases, legal rights are the worst case scenerios

 

[sajo]

In some cases, legal rights are the worst case scenerios kwa sababu huwa zinauondoa utu wa mtu na kumfanya aonekane ni mnyama. Chukulia scenerio umenikopesha fedha tukiwa wawili na hatukuandikishana, kwa makubaliano kuwa nitakurudishia lakini nikaamua kukunyima na kukana kuwa hukunikopesha. Chances ni kwamba ukiamua kwenda mahakamani, ninaweza kukushinda kesi vibaya sana, huku nikiwa nimedhalilisha utu wangu mimi mwenyewe na utu wako vile vile, ikiwa ni pamoja na kutengeneza uadui ambao unaweza ukapropagate kwenye familia zetu na hata ndugu zetu pia.
In some cases, legal rights are the worst case scenerios

Ni kweli aisee, na hapa ndio KARMA inapochukua nafasi sasa mkuu.