Arusha. The Court of Appeal has quashed proceedings and set aside the death sentence imposed on Respicius Rudovick, who was convicted of murdering his biological father, following the discovery of a jurisdictional flaw during the trial.
Mr Rudovick was sentenced to hang after being found guilty of killing his father, Mr Rudovick Alkard, on July 23, 2018, at Bugangaza Village in Muleba District, Kagera Region.
The deceased’s body was found beside his toilet, located adjacent to a coffee and banana farm.
The decision was delivered on Monday, August 10, 2026, by a three-judge panel comprising Justices Rehema Kerefu, Issa Maige, and Prof Ubena Agatho, with a copy published on the judiciary website.
The justices reached the ruling after reviewing court proceedings and agreeing with submissions from both parties that the trial court erred in law by convicting the appellant without following statutory procedures governing case transfers from the High Court to the Resident Magistrate’s Court for a magistrate with extended jurisdiction.
Justice Kerefu stated they agreed with counsel from both sides that the transfer order under section 45(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act (MCA) did not confer jurisdiction upon the resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction to try a murder case.
Following the flaw, the court quashed proceedings and the judgment delivered by the Bukoba Resident Magistrate's Court, ordering the file be remitted to the High Court for a retrial in accordance with the law.
However, the court directed that the case be heard afresh at the High Court, with Mr Rudovick remaining in custody.
The main case
In the original trial, the appellant was charged with murder contrary to section 196 of the Penal Code for allegedly killing his biological father.
The prosecution called seven witnesses and tendered two exhibits, including a post-mortem examination report and a crime scene sketch map.
Court records indicated a long-standing family dispute between the appellant and his father over cattle ownership.
It was alleged that on the day of the incident, Mr Rudovick visited the home of the second prosecution witness, Ms Evelijist Revelian, to inquire about his sick child.
While there, the appellant arrived intoxicated, carrying a machete.
He allegedly demanded that his father hand over the disputed cattle, sparking a heated argument before the witness intervened, disarmed Mr Respicius, and asked him to leave.
She told the court that moments later, Mr Respicius also departed towards his home, and shortly afterwards, she received news that the old man had been killed.
She testified going to Rudovick’s homestead and finding his body lying near the toilet, close to the banana and coffee farm, bearing a severe neck cut.
The third witness, a relative, Elipidius Rudovick, told the court that at different times, both their father and the appellant informed him they were going to the second witness's residence.
He claimed he later saw his father and the appellant walking home, with the appellant carrying a hand hoe, before hearing screams and stepping outside to find his father dead.
Defence
In his defence, the appellant acknowledged the deceased was his father but denied killing him, claiming he was arrested while mourning his father's death.
He claimed he had no dispute with his father and that while asleep, his daughter woke him and informed him that his father had been killed.
After evaluating the evidence and defence submissions, the Resident Magistrate's Court convicted him and sentenced him to death by hanging.
The appeal
In his appeal through counsel, he filed five grounds of appeal, which the court deemed unnecessary to list or analyse after identifying the core issue regarding the trial court's jurisdiction.
The central issue concerned the procedure used to transfer the case from the High Court to the Resident Magistrate’s Court for a magistrate with extended jurisdiction.
During the appeal hearing, the State Attorney supported the appeal, arguing the Bukoba Resident Magistrate's Court lacked jurisdiction because the transfer from the High Court relied on section 45(2) of the MCA instead of section 256A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).
He submitted that the transfer failed to follow legal procedure, rendering the entire trial before the Resident Magistrate's Court null and void, requesting the court to quash the judgment and order a retrial at the High Court, whereas the appellant's counsel sought quashing without ordering a retrial.
Court ruling
After examining the record of appeal, the justices concurred with submissions from both counsel that proceedings against Respicius violated section 256A (1) of the CPA.
According to the court, this was the appropriate provision to apply as it sets out the procedure for the High Court to transfer a case filed before it to a resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction.
“Since the magistrate lacked requisite jurisdiction to try the appellant's case due to non-compliance with section 256A (1) of the CPA, the omission rendered the entire lower court proceedings a nullity,” the court ruled.
Exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 6(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (AJA), the court quashed all proceedings of the Bukoba Resident Magistrate's Court and set aside the conviction and sentence against the appellant.
However, the court noted that considering the gravity of the offence charged and the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice required a retrial, ordering the file be remitted to the High Court for a fresh trial according to law, while the appellant remains remanded in custody.
