This is a compilation of bail cases in Tanzania. In these cases you will learn;
- Conditions for granting bail pending appeal.
- denial of bail
- LAWRENCE MATESO v REPUBLIC 1996 TLR 118 (HC)
- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v DAUDI PETE 1993 TLR 22 (CA)
- REPUBLIC v ATHUMANI ALLY MAUMBA 1988 TLR 114 (HC)
- JUMA JOSEPH SILIMU, DANIEL JOSEPH SILIMU and ONESMO JOSEPH SILIMU v REPUBLIC 1987 TLR 114 (HC)
- REPUBLIC v OMARI KIBWANA 1986 TLR 16 (HC)
LAWRENCE MATESO v REPUBLIC 1996 TLR 118 (HC)
The appellant was convicted of malicious damage to property by the district court. One appeal he applied for bail pending the determination of his appeal.
Conditions for granting bail pending appeal.
In the course of ruling on whether to grant bail or not, the high court elucidated conditions necessary for granting bail pending appeal. Those conditions are:
- That bail pending the appeal is the discretion of the court
- On deciding whether to grant bail or not, the court must balance the liberty of the individual with the proper administration of justice;
- That the applicant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that justice will not be jeopardized by his liberty and there are unusual and exceptional reasons for granting bail.
- That the appeal has an overwhelming chance of success
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v DAUDI PETE 1993 TLR 22 (CA)
Theme: Denial of bail in a criminal trial does not violate the presumption of innocence.
The respondent was accused of the offense of robbery with violence. His application of bail pending appeal was denied by District Court on the ground that the offense committed was not available.
The respondent appealed against the bail order to the High Court. The high court found that section 148(4) and (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act [CAP 20 R.E 2002] was unconstitutional consequently declared null and void and proceed to grant bail to the respondent.
The Director of Public Prosecutor aggrieved by the decision of the High Court and appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that denying bail to an accused person does not necessarily amount to treating such a person like a convicted criminal so section 148(5)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not violate Article 13(6)(b) of the Constitution of United The Republic of Tanzania, 1977. (the Constitution).
Courts have the discretion to grant bail to persons accused of offenses specified under section 148(5) (e) of the Act, which discretion should be exercised judicially taking into account the interests of both the individual and the community.
REPUBLIC v ATHUMANI ALLY MAUMBA 1988 TLR 114 (HC)
Theme: Bail may be refused when accused safety is in danger
The appellant was refused bail by the District Court because it believed the appellant’s safety would be better protected if he remained in custody.
The appellant had violated some children and police argued that the appellant could be assaulted by parents of the victim children.
Before the provisions of section 148 (5) (f) of the Criminal Procedure Act [CAP 20 R.E 2002] is invoked to the detriment of an accused person the prosecution must clearly show that the accused’s safety is in danger and such the information must be verified as to its authenticity.
JUMA JOSEPH SILIMU, DANIEL JOSEPH SILIMU and ONESMO JOSEPH SILIMU v REPUBLIC 1987 TLR 114 (HC)
Theme: Procedure when bail is refused by the District court.
The appellants applied to the High Court for bail after several unsuccessful attempts therefore to the District Court of Mbeya before which they were facing a joint charge of injuring animals contrary to section 325 of the Penal Code.
The application was made under section. 149 of the Criminal Procedure Act [CAP 20 R.E 2002] which vest powers to the High Court to grant or to vary terms of bail which was determined by a lower court.
When deciding on the procedure applied by appellants, High Court directed that where an application for bail is refused by a subordinate court, the applicant may appeal against the refusal order to the High Court, and it is improper for the applicant to move the High Court by way of a fresh application.
REPUBLIC v OMARI KIBWANA 1986 TLR 16 (HC)
Theme: Court should give surety enough time to find the accused person when the accused fails to appear.
Omari Kibwana stood surety for an accused person. The bail bond was Tshs. 60,000/=. On one occasion he failed to produce the accused before the Court as required. He himself attended the court and explained that the accused was sick.
The magistrate ordered the forfeiture of the bond or six months imprisonment. Kibwana was imprisoned. The record of proceedings was called by the High Court for inspection and revision.
Where the accused fails to appear on an appointed date it is preferable not to forfeit the bond of the surety too quickly, it is best to adjourn and allow the surety time to find the accused if he thinks he can get him
There was no reason to make the court think that the surety was lying it was clearly wrong on the part of the learned Senior Resident Magistrate to sentence the surety to a term of imprisonment.