Q&A – 26 July 2021

Procedure for notification of road traffic offences

Two weeks ago while I was driving a car, I was stopped by a traffic police who claimed that I had over speeded. Before I say anything he asked me to give him my driving licence which I did. He then started inserting my particulars in an electronic device he had in hand. He printed out a ticket from the device and gave it to me demanding I should pay the fine for committing the offence of over speeding. The traffic police did not give me my right to be heard before printing the ticket. Does the law allow a traffic police officer to impose a fine on someone without first giving him/her the right to defend? Is this not amounting to condemning me unheard?
KL, Mtwara

The procedure for imposition of fines for breach of road traffic laws is provided under the Road Traffic (Notification of Offences) Regulations, 2011 as amended by the Road Traffic (Notification of Offences) (Amendment) Regulations, 2015. The Regulations confers powers on police to impose a fine on a driver she/he suspects to have committed a road offence specified in the First Schedule to the Regulations. The law requires a police officer imposing a fine on the driver to serve the suspected driver with an electronic ticket to pay the fine.

The law does not provide room for hearing the driver’s side of the story before issuing him with the electronic ticket to pay the fine. If a driver disputes committing the road traffic offence and does not want to pay the fine, he or she is required to report to the police station which is close to the alleged scene to be taken to Court for answering the alleged charges of breaching road traffic laws. It is in Court where both sides, the traffic police and the driver will be heard to ascertain if the disputed offence alleged to have been committed by the driver is true or not.

Hence the driver who is disputing the breach of road traffic law has two options, either to pay the fine or if she/he disputes committing the offence, then she/he is required report to the police station in order to be taken to Court to answer charges and be accorded the right to dispute the alleged traffic offence. Failure to appear at police station within 7 days after being served with the electronic ticket presupposes that the driver has admitted committing the offence alleged and she/he shall be required to pay the fine.

The fine paid for breach of road traffic laws is fixed and must be paid within 7 days from the date of issuing the electronic ticket. If payment is not made within 7 days, the driver is required to pay a defaulting penalty in addition to the fixed fine. The defaulting fine is 25% of the fixed penalty fine. If the driver defaults to pay fixed fine beyond 14 days after the date of printing the electronic ticket, the driver will be required to pay the fixed fine plus the defaulting fine at a rate of 50% in addition to the fixed fine.

Where the default to pay the fixed penalty exceeds 30 days, the driver is deemed to be committing another offence of default to pay the fixed fine. This means failure to pay fixed fine imposed by traffic police beyond 30 days constitutes a separate offence which attracts a distinct penalty of fine amounting to TZS 50,000. At the same time, there shall be increment of 50% of the accrued penalty for every 30 days of delay of payment of the fixed penalty for the original road traffic offence.

Consequences of jumping bail

My father stood as a surety for our neighbour who was charged with rape. He signed a bail bond of TZS 5M. Unfortunately my father passed away earlier this year and we are yet even to propose an administrator of estates of the deceased. Immediately after death of my father, my neighbour who was bailed out by my father relocated and we do not know his current address. What adverse order can the Court give against the estates of the deceased or the administrator of the deceased estates?
SS, Dar

In view of section 156 and 160(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap.20 R.E 2019], where a surety dies before the Court orders forfeiture of bond or cognizance, the estate of the deceased surety is automatically discharged from all liability in respect of the bond or cognizance. However, where a forfeiture order of the bond is given before the surety dies, the execution of forfeiture order may be proceeded against the estate of the deceased surety as provided under section 160(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap.20 R.E 2019].

Court cannot order forfeiture of the estate of your deceased father because doing so will amount to condemning the deceased unheard since the accused jumped bail before the forfeiture order was given. Even if it is assumed that your deceased father died after the accused had jumped bail, the Court still cannot order forfeiture of your father’s estate because he died before the forfeiture order was given.

Procedurally before ordering a forfeiture of bond or cognizance, the surety must be accorded a chance to locate the accused if he thinks he can find him and if he fails to procure the accused, he will be required to show why his bond or cognizance should not be forfeited. Failure to show cause warrants the Court to issue an order that the bond or cognizance signed by the surety be forfeited. If the surety cannot pay the penalty and has nothing to forfeit, Court may order him to be detained in prison for six months.

Moreover, the Court has power to order only part of the bond to be paid instead of paying the full bond or cognizance.

Based on the above, we do not see any adverse orders being made against the deceased’s estate.