Arusha. The High Court, Dar es Salaam Sub-Registry, has dismissed an application filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeking an extension of time to file an appeal against a judgment of the Temeke District Court that acquitted the accused, Donatila Boniphas.
The decision was delivered on Thursday, April 30, 2026, by Judge Awamu Mbagwa, who heard Criminal Application No. 3816 of 2026.
The application was filed under Section 379(1)(b) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), requesting the court to extend time to lodge an appeal challenging the acquittal.
Judge Mbagwa said that after reviewing arguments from both sides, he found that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify the delay.
According to case details, the Temeke District Court delivered its judgment on August 8, 2025, acquitting the accused.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the prosecution claimed to have filed a notice of intention to appeal on September 1, 2025.
However, to proceed with the appeal, the DPP was required to seek an extension of time from the High Court, as the statutory period had already lapsed.
In the application, the applicant claimed the delay was caused by internal procedures required to obtain approval from the DPP’s office before proceeding with the appeal.
The applicant also urged the court to consider that the judgment it intended to challenge contained legal deficiencies.
However, the respondent opposed the application, arguing that the reasons advanced lacked legal merit.
Counsel for the respondent emphasised that internal procedures within a government office cannot be used as justification for delaying justice, adding that the prosecution ought to have acted promptly.
In his ruling, Judge Mbagwa explained that for the court to grant an extension of time, the applicant must demonstrate “sufficient cause” that is clear and convincing.
He noted that while there is no fixed definition of such reasons, the court considers the circumstances of each case, including the length of the delay, reasons advanced, and whether there are indications of negligence.
In the present case, the court identified significant shortcomings in the applicant’s submissions, noting that the applicant failed to attach a copy of the judgment sought to be challenged, making it impossible for the court to assess whether there were legal errors.
He further observed that although the applicant claimed to have filed a notice of intention to appeal within time, no document was attached to substantiate the claim.
The judge said this reflected serious negligence and a lack of diligence in presenting the application.
“The court cannot verify claims of legal violations without seeing the judgment itself,” Judge Mbagwa said in his ruling.
He added that failure to submit essential documents is a major flaw that fatally weakens the applicant’s case, and dismissed the claim that the delay was caused by internal DPP procedures, stating that such a reason carries no legal weight.
Considering all the factors, the court concluded that the applicant had failed to establish sufficient grounds for an extension of time, and the application was accordingly dismissed.
