|Case Number||APPLICATION NO. 05 OF 2019 (IN AN INTENDED APPEAL)|
This Ruling arises from Application No 05 of 2019 filed by the Applicant under Rule 81 of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) Rules of Procedure, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of this Court”) to strike out the Notice of Appeal filed by the Respondent on the 11th April, 2019. The Application, arises from the Decision of the First Instance Division (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Reference No. 02 of 2017 in which the Applicants challenged the provisions of the Media Services Act as being in violation of Articles 6 (d) and 7 (2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community (hereinafter referred to as “the Treaty”). 2. Judgment in Reference No 02 of 2017 was entered by the Trial Court in favour of the Applicants. Being dissatisfied with the said Decision, the Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court dated 11th April, 2019. 3. At the Hearing of the Application, the Applicants were represented by Advocates Mr. Fulgence Massawe and Mr. Jebra Kamole; and the Respondents by Ms. Alesia Mubya Principal State Attorney, Mr. Abubakar Mrisha, Principal State Attorney and Mr. Stanley Kalokola, State Attorney.
|Respondent||THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA|
|Complainant||MEDIA COUNCIL OF TANZANIA AND LEGAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE AND TANZANIA HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS COALITION|
First Instance Judgment
|Verdict||The above finding is sufficient for us to dispose of this Application. However, the Respondent has argued to some length that, it has good reasons why we should not strike out the Notice of Appeal. In this regard, we must agree with Counsel for the Applicant that, if the Respondent had any good reason for the delay in instituting the appeal, then the Respondent cannot raise those reasons in this Application under review. Having conceded that, the Respondent did not institute the appeal in time, the best the Respondent can do to remedy that lapse, is to apply to Court to extend time required for them to institute the appeal. Rule 4 of the Rules of this Court provides: “...A Division of the Court may, for sufficient reason, extend the time limited by these Rules or by any decision of itself for the doing of any act authorized or required by these Rules, whether before or after the expiration of such time and whether before or after the doing of the act, and any reference in these Rules to any such time shall be construed as a reference to such time as so extended..." However the Respondent, has filed no such application for us to consider so the reasons argued before us for the delay in this application are beside the point and are irrelevant. The Notice of Appeal dated and lodged in this Court on the 11th April, 2019 is struck out with costs awarded to the Applicant. IT IS SO ORDERED|
|PDF document||Download the decision as PDF|
|Date delivered||June 9, 2020|