TEACHING NOTES

LS 104 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE

LECTURE 3: JURISDICTION

Objective: At the conclusion of this part candidates should be able to

demonstrate sufficient knowledge, skills and abilities in various
legal aspects relating to the jurisdiction of courts.

INTRODUCTION
In criminal matters, it is essential for a legal counsel: whether an advocate
or prosecution attorney to have knowledge of jurisdiction of courts.
Indeed the question of jurisdiction lies at the root of judicial functions.
Courts are creatures of statute and can only exercise such powers as
conferred by statute. They may not exercise powers which the law does
not, expressly or impliedly, vest in them.
Jurisdiction is fundamental. It is not simply a question of form for it
prescribes the boundaries of the authority of a court. If a court tries a case
over which it has no jurisdiction the sentence passed and handed to the
accused after such trial cannot stand. For instance it would be illegal for a
Primary court to try and convict an accused person charged with murder.

i. Meaning of jurisdiction
Simply defined the jurisdiction of a court refers to the extent to which or
the limits within which, courts or magistrates/judges may act in the
course of handling a particular type of a case or pass a particular
sentence. Reference should generally be made to Parts 1-3 of Chapter 5
of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania; Part III of the
Magistrates Courts’ Act, Chapter 11 and Part III of the Criminal
Procedure Act, Chapter 20 .The limits within which a court may exercise
its powers may be geographical or pecuniary or may be prescribed
according to the subject matter; that is by categorization of offences
which should be tried or inquired into by a certain court or the sentence
which such court may impose.

ii. Categories of Jurisdiction

(a) Original Jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction means the power of a court to hear or try a case as a
matter of first instance. This requires that a particular type of case should
only be commenced and tried in the lowest court in the ladder before
moving to the next court in that hierarchy if need be. A court with
original jurisdiction may hear the case, make various findings and orders,
pass judgment and sentence the accused within the limits provided for in
the law. According to sections 18, 40 and 41 of the Magistrates Courts’
Act, Primary Courts, District Courts and Resident Magistrates’ Courts in
Tanzania mainland have original jurisdiction in criminal matters as
provided by the First Schedule (jurisdiction of primary courts) and
Second Schedule (jurisdiction of district courts) of the Act and any other
law. The High Court of Tanzania has unlimited original jurisdiction.

Further guidance regarding original jurisdiction of courts is to be found in

other laws. The First Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 20,
for instance, sets out the offences in connection with which the High
Court and district courts may exercise original jurisdiction. Similarly
original jurisdiction in relation to economic crimes lies with the High
Court1, in accordance with section 3 of the Economic and Organised
Crime Control Act, Chapt. 200.

(b) Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction means the geographical area within which a court
may exercise its powers. A District Court has jurisdiction within the
district in which it is situated, and a court of a resident magistrate has
jurisdiction in the region within which it is situated2. On the other hand
the High Court has jurisdiction within the territorial limits of a State3.

Before a court proceeds to inquire into any offence it must satisfy itself
that the alleged offence was committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
The case of Sharma v. R., 20 EACA 310, sufficiently illustrates the point
as to the importance of territorial jurisdiction. In that case territorial
jurisdiction was in issue. The Court of appeal for Eastern Africa pointed
out that proof of place of commission of offence is essential to the
prosecution’s case and that although it is not always capable of exact
proof, evidence should be led on which the necessary inference can be
drawn.

It is for this reason that a charge must always state in the particulars as to
where the alleged offence was committed. It is from those particulars that

1
Section 3 of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act, Cap. 200 provides thus, “The
jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving economic offences under this Act is hereby vested in
the High Court”.
2
See Sections 4 – 5 Magistrates’ Courts Act, Cap. 11.
3
See Article 108 Constitution of the United Republic 1977.
the court will be able to know whether or not it has territorial jurisdiction
to try or to inquire into the case.

If the court discovers, on reading the charge, or in the course of the trial,
that the offence was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction, it must
immediately make an order transferring the case to the court within
whose jurisdiction the offence was committed.

As officers of the court, counsel for the defence or prosecution, as the

case may be, have a duty to assist the court by drawing its attention to any
matter or fact that may affect its jurisdiction.

(c) Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction by subject matter, also termed jurisdiction by categorization
of offences is expressly conferred by legislation stating which offences
are triable by what court. The First Schedule to the Criminal Procedure
Act, for instance, sets out what offences are triable by subordinate courts
and which are triable by the High Court. Similarly the First Schedule to
the Magistrates’ Courts Act, Cap. 11 sets out which offences may be tried
by primary courts in addition to other subordinate courts.

It is always important to check the law that gives jurisdiction before

commencing the trial or inquiry into a case. The case of R. v. Mrisho s/o
Seffu, (1968) HCD 140, sufficiently illustrates the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction. In that case the accused was tried and convicted by a district
court of the offence of incest by males contrary to section 158 (1) of the
Penal Code. The High Court in revision declared the trial a nullity as the
offence is triable only by the High Court. Consequently the conviction
was quashed, the sentence set aside, and the case was remitted to the
subordinate court for committal proceedings at the option of the
Republic.

(d) Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Pecuniary jurisdiction, which usually applies to civil cases, means
limitation of the powers of a court by the value of the subject matter in
issue. For the purpose of this paper it is only of passing interest and need
not detain us any further.

(e) Sentencing Jurisdiction

The sentencing powers of a subordinate court are not unlimited. As such
a subordinate court may not impose on a convicted person any sentence
of imprisonment, fine or corporal punishment it pleases. Section 170 (1)
of the Criminal Procedure Act, prescribes what sentences subordinate
courts may lawfully pass. That sub-section provides that in cases where
such sentences are authorised by law, a subordinate court may pass a
sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, as a
general rule. Similarly it may not impose a fine of more than twenty
million shillings.

For instance, where a subordinate court convicts a person of the offence

of stealing from the person of another (s. 269 Penal Code), an offence
which carries a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment, the
maximum sentence it can impose on the convicted person is five years
imprisonment, regardless of what the aggravating circumstances may be.

If however, a subordinate court convicts a person of an offence scheduled

under the Minimum Sentences Act, Cap. 90, and such sentence is
authorised by law, it may pass a sentence of imprisonment for such
offence for a term not exceeding eight years.

(f) Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate jurisdiction means the power of a court to hear or try matters
on appeal from another court inferior to it. For instance section 20 of the
Magistrates’ Courts Act gives district courts the power to hear appeals
from decisions of primary courts, while section 21 stipulates what district
courts may do in exercise of their appellate jurisdiction. Further, in terms
of section 25 of the same Act; parties aggrieved by decisions of district
courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction may further appeal to
the High Court. Finally, in accordance with section 4 of the Appellate
Jurisdiction Act, Cap 141, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear
and determine appeals from the High Court and from subordinate courts
with extended jurisdiction.

As such in criminal matters a person convicted on a trial held by the High

Court or by a subordinate court exercising extended powers may appeal
to the Court of Appeal. Similarly if the Director of Public Prosecutions is
dissatisfied with any acquittal, sentence or order made or passed by the
High Court or by a subordinate court exercising extended powers he may
appeal to the Court of Appeal against the acquittal, sentence or order, as
the case may be.
 (g) Extended Jurisdiction
When a subordinate court is given power to try offences not ordinarily
tried by subordinate courts, it is said to exercise extended jurisdiction.
Indeed it ought to be borne in mind that extended jurisdiction is not for
the courts but for the Magistrates. In terms of section 173 of the Criminal
Procedure Act, the Minister responsible for legal affairs may, after
consultation with the Chief Justice and the Attorney General, by order
published in the Gazette– invest any resident magistrate with power to try
any category of offences, or specified cases which, would ordinarily be
tried by the High Court, specifying the area within which he may exercise
such extended powers. Similarly by virtue of section 45 of the
Magistrates’ Courts Act, a magistrate may be vested by the Minister with
appellate jurisdiction ordinarily exercisable by the High Court.

A magistrate exercising extended jurisdiction has the power to impose

any sentence which could lawfully be imposed by the High Court.
Therefore, for the purposes of any appeal from or revision of his decision
in the exercise of extended jurisdiction, such resident magistrate is
deemed to be a judge of the High Court, and the court presided over by
him while exercising extended jurisdiction shall be deemed to be the
High Court.

(h) Summary Jurisdiction

Criminal trials before subordinate courts involving offences which fall
within the ambit of jurisdiction of subordinate courts are normally
disposed of by way of summary trial. This happens because the
subordinate court is vested with the power to try such offences and
impose the appropriate sentence. Criminal offences triable by subordinate
courts are also technically known as summary offences. As such they
may be said to be disposed of in by way of summary trial4 and the
subordinate court involved in disposing of the cases may rightly be said
to exercise summary jurisdiction. The First Schedule to the Criminal
Procedure Act contains a list of some of the offences which subordinate
courts may dispose of by way of summary trial. Where offences not
triable by a subordinate court are involved, it has to hold committal
proceedings5. The terms summary trial and summary jurisdiction have, by

4
Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act defines summary trial to mean ‘a trial held by a subordinate
court under Part VII of the Act’. This part of the Criminal Procedure Act details the procedure to be
followed in trials before subordinate courts.
5
Section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act explains the circumstances under which committal
proceedings are to be held thus, “ Whenever any charge has been brought against any person of an
offence not triable by a subordinate court or as to which the court is advised by the Director of Public
Prosecutions in writing or otherwise that it is not suitable to be disposed of upon summary trial,
some authorities on Criminal Procedure, been associated with (and
sometimes restricted to) the provisions of section 213(1) of the CPA
which lay down the procedure that may be followed by subordinate
courts in the case of minor offences detailed in sub-section two of that
section, which may be tried without recording the evidence.

(i) Revisional Jurisdiction

Revision jurisdiction is the power vested in a superior court to examine
the records of an inferior court in order to satisfy itself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any decisions or orders made by such
(inferior) court. Thus, in terms of section 22 of the Criminal Procedure
Act a district court may call for and examine the records of proceedings
in primary courts and revise them. Similarly a Resident Magistrate-in-
Charge may call for and inspect the record of any proceedings in a
district court6 and the High Court has revision jurisdiction over matters
originating in primary courts, as persons aggrieved by a decision of a
district court in the exercise of its revision powers over primary courts
may appeal to the High Court7. Similarly section 372 of the Criminal
Procedure Act empowers the High Court to call for records of a
subordinate (magistrate’s) court for the purpose of examining such record
and satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by that court.

(j) Supervisory Jurisdiction

The High Court exercises general powers of supervision over all courts in
the exercise of their jurisdiction and therefore has power to:
• call for and inspect the record of any proceedings in a district
court or primary court and examine the records or register
thereof; or
• direct any district court to call for and inspect the records of
any proceedings of the primary court established in its district
and to examine its records and registers thereof, in order to
satisfy itself, as to the correctness, legality and propriety of
any decision or order and as to the regularity of any
proceedings therein; (see s.30(1) Magistrates’ Courts Act)

committal proceedings shall be held according to the provisions hereinafter contained by a subordinate
court of competent jurisdiction”. Committal proceedings are a preparatory process for an offence/case
to be tried by the High Court, and the procedure is mandatory. This is amply illustrated by section 178
of the Criminal Procedure Act which provides in part; “….. no criminal case shall be brought under
cognizance of the High Court unless it has been previously investigated by a subordinate court and the
accused person has been committed for trial before the High Court”.
6
See section 44(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act.
7
See section 25 Magistrates’ Courts Act.
Similarly a Resident Magistrate-in-Charge may call for and inspect the
record of any proceedings in a resident magistrates' court, a district court
or a primary court and examine the records or registers thereof for the
purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of
any decision or order and as to the regularity of any proceedings therein.
In any case in which he considers that any decision or order is illegal or
improper or any proceedings are irregular he may:
• in the case of a resident magistrate’s or district court forward the
record with a report to the High Court that it may consider whether
or not to exercise its powers of revision, and
• in the case of a primary court, consider the proceedings and if he
considers it appropriate so to do, revise the same.

This power however has certain limits in that a resident magistrate-in-

charge may not call for, inspect, forward or report on any proceedings
before a resident magistrate. (see section 30(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts
Act.)

(k) Defects Going to the Root of Jurisdiction

¾ Jurisdictional Error
A defect which goes to the root of jurisdiction, such as a subordinate
court trying an offence, for which it lacks jurisdiction, will result in the
trial being declared a nullity. In the case of R. v. Mrisho s/o Seffu (1968)
HCD 140, which we saw above, a subordinate court convicted the
accused person for the offence of incest by males, an offence which is
triable by the High Court. On revision the High Court declared the trial a
nullity and set aside the sentence imposed on the accused by the district
court. The import of the order of the High Court is that the district court
in this case had usurped the jurisdiction of the High Court and purported
to exercise jurisdiction not vested in it by law. In other words, there was a
jurisdictional error on the part of the district court8.

8
Jurisdictional error usually attracts judicial review. The doctrine of judicial review belongs to
Administrative Law - that branch of law which relates to decisions of officers or organs of the Central
Government or Public Authorities which may affect the rights or liberties of citizens and which are
enforceable in or recognised by courts of law. Generally defects or errors by inferior courts or tribunals
going to the root of jurisdiction will attract intervention by superior courts. Jurisdictional errors may
arise in a variety of situations such as where an inferior court erroneously purports to exercise
jurisdiction it does not possess or declines to exercise one which it does. The point of asking whether a
defect “goes to jurisdiction” is to decide not whether it is reviewable, but whether it is correctable.
Judicial review will lie where an inferior court or tribunal or public body has acted without or in excess
of its jurisdiction. Such bodies must not act outside their powers. They must abide by any jurisdictional
conditions, and follow the prescribed procedures, and cannot delegate except as expressly laid down.
Any order must be one which it has jurisdiction to make. See Anisminic Limited v. Foreign
Compensation Commission (1969) 2 A.C. 147.
 ¾ Judicial Bias and Conflict of Interest
Closely related to the issue of defects going to the root of jurisdiction is
the question of judicial bias and/or conflict of interest. Where a
magistrate has an interest in the case, he should not try the case. Indeed, a
magistrate must not try a case in which it is likely or probable that
reasonable people may think that he is biased. This rule is based on the
cardinal principle that a man ought not to be a judge in his own cause and
that justice must not only be done but must be seen to have been done.

A classic case on conflict of interest and bias is the English case of Dimes
v. Guard Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759. In that case, Lord
Chancellor Cottenham had, in a Chancery suit, affirmed a number of
decrees made by the Vice-Chancellor in favour of a canal company in
which Lord Cotenham had financial interest as a shareholder. Lord
Cottenham’s decrees were set aside by the House of Lords on the
ground of such financial interest. In that case Lord Campbell said, at page
793:
“No one can suppose that Lord Cottenham could be, in the remotest
degree influenced by the interest that he had in this concern; but, My
Lords, it is of the last importance that the maxim, that no man is to
be a judge in his own cause, should be held sacred…And it will have
a most salutary influence on…tribunals when it is known that this
high court of last resort, in a case in which the Lord Chancellor of
England had an interest, considered that his decree was on that
account a decree not according to law, and was set aside. This will
be a lesson to all inferior tribunals to take care not only that in their
decrees they are not influenced by their personal interest, but to
avoid the appearance of labouring under such an influence”.

In principle the law does not require that there should be actual bias on
the part of a magistrate. The law is that where the circumstances are that
reasonable people would think that there is real likelihood of bias on the
part of a magistrate, then such magistrate must not try the case, and if he
does, a superior court will not allow the resulting judgement to stand. It is
immaterial that the trial magistrate was in fact scrupulously fair in the
trial. The question is whether, in the circumstances, right thinking people
would say that the trial magistrate would be, or was, biased.

This principle was aptly restated by Lord Denning, M.R., in the case of
Metropolitan Properties Company (FGC) Ltd. v. Lannon and Others
(1969) 1 QB 577 in which he said, at page 599:
 “…in considering whether there was a likelihood of bias, the court
does not look at the mind of the justice himself or at the mind of the
chairman of the tribunal, or whoever it may be, who sits in a judicial
capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he
would, or did, in fact, favour one side at the expense of the other.
The court looks at the impression which would be given to other
people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless if right
minded persons would think that, in the circumstances there was a
real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. And if he
does his decision cannot stand…..Nevertheless there must appear to
be a real likelihood of bias. Surmise or conjecture is not
enough…There must be circumstances from which a reasonable
man would think it likely or probable that the justice or chairman, as
the case may be, would, or did, favour one side unfairly at the
expense of the other. The court will no inquire whether he did, in
fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people
might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be
rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right minded
people go away thinking: - the judge was biased”….

Issues of bias may arise in a variety of circumstances. If at a trial, an

accused person openly expresses his concerns as to the impartiality of the
magistrate: “because the complainant is a former girlfriend of the
magistrate….” The magistrate may not reject the complaint out of hand.
He must consider it and examine all the circumstances and then decide
whether right minded people, would in those circumstances, think it
likely or probable that the magistrate may, or would favour one side
unfairly against the other. He must not give in to the claim automatically
nor dismiss it brusquely. He must weigh it carefully and, if he is
reasonable might even consult counsel for the prosecution or the defence
as the case may be. Whatever decision he comes to on the matter must be
influenced by one consideration: What would a reasonable man go way
thinking? (See also Michael M. Leopold v. Republic (1977) LRT 1.)

In relation to conflict of interest section 65 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act

Cap.11, provides in part that: “…no magistrate shall act in his judicial
office in any proceedings in which he has any pecuniary or personal
interest”.
 (l) Errors of Procedure that do not take away jurisdiction
An error of procedure which does not go to the root of jurisdiction is not
fatal to the proceedings in question, where such error, omission or
irregularity has not occasioned a failure of justice. See sections 387 – 388
of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(m) Uncertainty of Jurisdiction

Questions of uncertainty of jurisdiction as between courts may be referred
to the High Court for determination. To that effect Section 185 of the
Criminal Procedure Act provides:
“Whenever a doubt arises as to the court by which an offence
should be inquired into or tried any court entertaining the doubt
may, in its discretion, report the circumstances to the High Court
and the High Court shall decide by which court the offence shall be
inquired into or tried; and a decision of the High Court shall be
final and conclusive except that it shall be open to an accused
person to show that no court in Tanzania has jurisdiction in the
case”.

(n) Power of the High Court where a Fair Trial cannot be effected
The High court has power under section 191 of the Criminal Procedure
Act, to order that any offence be inquired into or tried by any court not
otherwise empowered but in other respects competent to try or inquire
into the offence, or that any particular case or class of cases be transferred
from any court subordinate to its authority to any other court of equal or
superior jurisdiction, or that an accused person be committed for trial to
itself. The High Court will invoke this power where it has been made to
appear:
(1) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any
court subordinate thereto;
(2) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise;
(3) that a view of the place in or near which an offence has been
committed may be required for the satisfactory inquiry into or
trial of the offence;
(4) that an order under this section will tend to the general
convenience of the parties or witnesses; or
(5) that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of
justice or is required by any provision of the Criminal
Procedure Act.

The High Court may invoke these powers either on the report of the
lower court, or on an application of a party interested, or on its own
initiative.
An application to the High Court seeking to move it for the exercise of
these powers must be made by motion supported by an affidavit, except
where the applicant is the Director of Public prosecutions.
Where the application is made by an accused person, he must notify the
Director of Public Prosecutions in writing with a copy of the grounds on
which the application is based.
On its part the High Court shall not make any order on the merits of the
application unless at least twenty-four hours have elapsed between the
service of the notice and the hearing of the application.
Where the application has been made by an accused person, the High
Court may direct him to execute a bond, with or without sureties,
undertaking that he will, if convicted, pay the costs of the prosecutor.

(o) Jurisdiction conferred by the Director of Public Prosecutions

¾ Economic Offences triable by subordinate courts
Jurisdiction over Economic Offences falling under the Economic and
Organised Crimes Control Act, Cap 200 is vested in the High Court. See
section 3(1) of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act. However
the Director of Public Prosecutions may, by certificate, confer jurisdiction
on a court subordinate to the High Court to try economic offences. To
that effect section 12(3) of the Economic and Organised Crimes Control
Act provides:
“The Director of Public Prosecutions or any State Attorney duly
authorised by him, may, in each case in which he deems it
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, by certificate under
his hand, order that any case involving an offence triable by the
Court under this Act be tried by such court subordinate to the High
Court as he may specify in the certificate”.

¾ Economic court to try non-economic offences

Similarly, where he deems it appropriate, the Director of Public
Prosecutions may cause a case instituted before a subordinate court,
which involves a non-economic offence or both an economic offence and
a non-economic offence to be tried by the High Court. To this effect
section 12(4) of the Economic and Organised Crime Control Act
provides:
“The Director of Public Prosecutions or any State Attorney duly
authorised by him, may, in each case in which he deems it
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, by certificate under
his hand order that any case instituted or to be instituted before a
court subordinate to the High Court and which involves a non-
economic offence or both an economic offence and a non-
economic offence, be instituted in the Court”.
 (p) Jurisdiction of the court to control proceedings
In addition to the general supervisory powers of the High Court,
subordinate courts too have the following powers to control proceedings
within their jurisdictional competence.

™ Rejection of complaint or charge

A magistrate is empowered to reject a complaint or formal charge if he is
of the opinion that the complaint or formal charge presented by the public
prosecutor or complainant does not disclose an offence. Where a
magistrate makes an order rejecting a charge, he shall record his reasons
for such order. See section 129 Criminal Procedure Act.

™ Choice of venue within a court’s jurisdiction

A magistrates' court may be held at any place within its local limits of
jurisdiction. When it is proposed to hold it at a place that is not regularly
or customarily used for such a purpose, a public notice shall be given of
the intention to use the same for such a purpose. See section 10(1) and (2)
Magistrates’ Courts Act.

The power to hold court at a place that is not regularly or customarily

used for holding the courts are increasingly being invoked in the wake of
the policy of “taking justice to the people”. The factors to be taken into
account when considering whether or not a magistrate’s court should be
held at a place other than where it customarily holds court include
convenience to the court, the parties and witnesses, and a saving of funds
by way of operational cost reduction.

At any rate, when the court invokes these powers, the venue selected
must be within the local limits of the court’s jurisdiction.

™ Choice of day, date and time of proceedings

Equally a magistrates' court within its jurisdiction has power to decide to
sit at such times, on such days and at such places, as may be necessary for
the convenient and speedy dispatch of the business of the court. Where it
deems it convenient for the dispatch of any proceeding of a criminal
nature, a magistrates' court may sit on Sunday or on a public holiday. See
section 10(3) and (5) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act.

™ Time Lines set under the Criminal Procedure Act

There are time lines set under the Criminal Procedure Act within which
certain acts must be done by the DPP or his representatives. The
requirement to comply with the time lines is mandatory and failure to
comply would be met with an appropriate legal sanction. The cumulative
effect of these time lines is that they give the courts effective control over
the powers to prosecute exercised by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The table below shows the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act
which set time lines. Column four shows the possible sanctions i.e the
consequence of non compliance.

Law Prescribed Issue Consequences

Time for non
compliance

Section 29 within 24 Accused to be Unlawful detention

CPA hours brought to court upon
arrest and failure to
meet police bail or
bond conditions

Section 33 Within 24 Accused to be Unlawful detention

CPA hours brought to court upon
arrest whether or not
released on police
bail or bond

Section Within 24 Accused to be Unlawful detention

64(1)(c) CPA hours released if no formal
charge has been laid

Section 67(3) Within 24 Accused in custody Unlawful detention

CPA hours to be brought to court
upon request for bail

Section 157 Within 24 Accused on bail to Unlawful detention

CPA hours be brought to court
with jurisdiction upon
arrest for fear that he
may not honour the
bail conditions (he
may abscond)

Section 225(2) Within 15 Case must proceed Accused likely to

CPA days after the charge has be discharged for
been laid for accused prosecution failure
who are remanded in to proceed with
custody the case.

Section 225(2) Within 30 Case must proceed Accused likely to

CPA days after the charge has be discharged for
been laid for accused prosecution failure
who are admitted on to proceed with
 bail. the case.

Section 225(4) Within 60 Case has to go on Charge likely to be

days trial without dismissed for
adjournment unless prosecution failure
the provisions of to proceed with
subsection 225(4)(a) the case.
– (c) have been
complied with.