Difference and similarity of original against extended jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to entertain a case at first instance; this has been stipulated under S.18 (1) of the MCA AND S.167-172 of CPA. And extended Jurisdiction refers to the power given to the court to deal with a case and determine the case.

The similarities of the two jurisdictions are as follows;

All powers of the court to deal with the same case that means the case will be entertained in the original court and there is also some power also given to extended courts to entertain that case also

For instances in the case of murder, normally such cases have been entertained by the original jurisdiction such as the high court however if extended jurisdiction has been given power to entertain that case it will be able to do so like in the case of R V ALLY SAID KIUBATYO[1] , this case was brought to the High Court of Tanzania to entertain the murder case where by the accused was charged with murder of his wife. After killing his wife, and dumping her body into an abandoned latrine, buried her and made a false report to his own father and mother in law about his wife.

The killing took place after the accused had suspected that his wife had committed adultery and failed to arrest the suspect after a chase and apparently the wife uttered words which made the accused loose his temper and hit the deceased with a bill hook 

Held – The statement alleged to have been uttered by the deceased was provocative in law and as the accused killed the deceased as a result of such of such provocation the killing was not intentional. The murder against the accused had not been proven consequently and the accused was acquitted from the murder charges under S196 of the penal code but to convict him of manslaughter     

This is to say that this case was determined by original jurisdiction, the high court as original jurisdiction has the power to sentence or make a sentence to an accused. The original jurisdiction has the power to entertain the matter and finalize it with a sentence

On the differences of the original jurisdiction and extended jurisdiction the following is observed;

Original jurisdiction has the power to entertain the case at first instance while extended jurisdiction is power attained from the original jurisdiction to entertain a case, thus extended jurisdiction is not for the court but for the magistrate, this enables the magistrate to hear appeals or determine any category of offence of a case otherwise determinable by the high court. This jurisdiction has been provided under S. 173 of the C.P.A ‘The minister may have after consultation with the Chief Justice and the Attorney General, by order published gazette-    A - invest any resident Magistrate with power to category of any offence which, but for provision of this section would ordinarily be tried by the high court and may specify the area within which he may exercise such extended power’

B – Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the high court to order transfer of cases. That means that S. 172(2) shows where the extended jurisdiction comes from

In the case of VINCENT S MAPUNDA V R[2] shows how the original jurisdiction has power to entertain a case

The appellant was convicted of the offence of murder by the high court and sentenced to the death. It was alleged that the appellant had given medicine to the deceased. The trial court found that the appellant had in fact given the medicine to the deceased. Evidence showed that the medicine taken by the deceased was in large quantities, lead to the death. It was argued on appeal that there was no evidence to establish the quantity of the medicine given and therefore prosecution had failed to discharge the burden 

Held – (i) The duty of the prosecution consisted in showing that the medicine or toxic substance taken by the deceased was the cause of the death

(ii) There was no sufficient evidence on which the high court could properly have based the conviction for the offence charged or for any other lesser offence

This case has been brought to the original jurisdiction to entertain the offence and it comes with a solution to the offence and his sentence

As per case of ARCHARD V ASTERIA AND OTHERS[3], shows whether High

Court (original jurisdiction) can make any decision or order that could be made by the court for the first instance

The respondent, a woman sold land to the second respondent who didn’t belong to the same clan. It was not contested that the first respondent being a woman could not, in Bahaya customary law, dispose of clan. The appellant clan member sued both respondents for recovery of the said clan in Kamachumu primary court. The appellant appealed to the high court  which set aside the district courts decision, and restored that the primary court with justification and appealed to the court of appeal

Held – Under S.29 [C] of the magistrates’ court act of 1984, the high court has power to entertain or make a decision or order which might have been made by the court first instance

Therefore the relationship between the extended jurisdiction and original jurisdiction is that the extended jurisdiction has been given power by the other courts [original jurisdiction to determine cases on behalf of the high court or other original jurisdiction

On the original jurisdiction the court exercises original jurisdiction enjoyed with a number of powers, it may receive complaint, it may issue different processes ordinarily issued by the court of first instance, this process including warrant of arrest, search warrant and summons.

Courts exercise original jurisdiction may also prosecute pass judgements and sentence the accused here necessary

The order extending jurisdiction of such Magistrate need not be specific to the extent of extension but it must be published as Government Notice

---

[1] R V ALLY SAID KIUBATYO[1990]TLR137

[2] VINCENT MAPUNDA V R 1992 CA 200

[3] ARCHARD V ASTERIA AND OTHERS 1992 CA