Paul v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 12-D-71; 15/2/71; Hamlyn J.

 

Paul v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 12-D-71; 15/2/71; Hamlyn J.

The appellant was charged in the Temeke Primary Court of stealing contrary to section 265 of the Penal Code and was acquitted. The complainant was dissatisfied with the result and complained to the District Court Magistrate who issued a summons to the appellant for appearance to that court. The case filed at the District Court shows proceedings as between Rose Mwita (the complainant) and the Republic and is headed (Criminal Revision”.

Held: (1) [After quoting the relevant extract from the District Court records] “These proceedings are ‘in revision’. Had the complainant endeavored to lodge an appeal against the decision of the Primary Court, she would have been unable to do so, for she is not the prosecutor but only a complainant. Even though on the cover of the District Court proceedings the matter is shown as between the complainant and the ‘Republic’, no prosecutor appears to have taken any part in the case and the District Court seems to have acted merely on the letter of the complaint of the original complainant in the court of first instance. I think that it cannot be doubted but that the so-called ‘Revision’ was not properly before the court as it stood, though the district Court undoubtedly has powers of revision under the Magistrates” Courts Act. It was certainly not an appeal, for there is no petition of appeal and no appellant.” (2) [After quoting sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 18 of the Magistrates’ courts act]. “It seems clear therefore that, if the District Court purported to be sitting in its revisional jurisdiction (as apparently is the case here), it had no power to substitute a conviction for the acquittal had in the Primary court and the conviction with which it concludes its Order in Revision in beyond its powers. If on he other hand, one regards these District Court proceedings as being an appeal, there is no appellant. It is evident that the whole of these proceedings in the District Court are ultra vires and cannot stand.” (3) Order in Revision set aside.