2008 wherein the Applicant was charged with armed robbery and rape. 5. Criminal Case No. 1029/2007 which eventually became Criminal Case No. 712/2009 dated 21 December 2009 wherein the Applicant was charged with armed robbery. The original charge sheet indicated that the alleged incident of armed robbery occurred on 12 September 2009 yet the Applicant was already in custody at the time the alleged offence occurred. In the course of the hearing of this easel the Applicant alerted the Magistrate's Court to the Prosecution's substitution of the charge on 13 November 2012, to reflect the alleged incident of armed robbery. 6. Criminal Case No. 716/2009 dated 23 December 2009 wherein the Applicant was charged with armed robbery, kidnapping with intent to do harm and rape, though he was not present in Court. 54. The Applicant's wife was charged with robbery and possession of stolen items under Criminal Case No. 799 of 2007. She was in remand from 12 September 2007 until her release on 25 October 2007. 55. There being no progress in the prosecutions against him, the Applicant corresponded severally with the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the Attorney General's Chambers', Public Prosecution Division and the Commission on Human Rights and Good Governance. seeking their intervention in ensuring the prosecutions against him either proceeded or were withdrawn for lack of evidence and that his seized property be restored to him 56. Having received no resolution of the issues he raised with the said authorities and institutions, the Applicant informed the Director of the Attorney General's Chambers' Public Prosecution Division and the Minister of Home Affairs that he would move to the High Court to have these issues resolved. 57. In 2007, the Applicant filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 7 of 2007, Originating from Criminal Case No. 933 of 2007, in the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, under Section 357(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, against the Attorney General of the Respondent. He sought orders for restitution of his property seized on 12 September 2007 while he was in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and for any order the Court deemed fit to grant. At the hearing of the Applicant's application, the Respondent therein contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to order the restitution of the Applicant's property as the right Court to issue such an order was the District Court where the Applicant was facing prosecution on a murder charge. The Applicant argued that there was no connection between the murder charge he was facing and the property that the Police had seized. The High Court stated that as the High Court had jurisdiction over murder cases, it followed that the High Court had jurisdiction to order restitution of property in murder cases. However, in the instant case, because there was no connection between the property seized by the Police and the murder charge which the Applicant was facing, the High Court's jurisdi ction to order the restitution of the property was ousted and the only avenue open to him was to approach the District Court where he was charged, to seek orders for restitution of his property. The Court also stated that though the Applicant could have applied for prerogative orders from the High Court, being the only court vested with jurisdiction to issue such orders, such orders could only be granted if they would in no way prejudice the interests of justice in respect of the murder charge the Applicant faced. In this regard therefore, the High Court stated that since the murder charge the Applicant was facing in Criminal Case No. 933 of 2007 was pending, the Applicant's application to the High Court was premature and that it had to be stayed until final determination of the pending murder charge unless the seized properties had no connection with the charge he facect 58 In addition. by the time the High Court heard the Application, the charges in the rest of the Criminal Cases had been filed against the Applicant and the fact that there were additional criminal charges filed against him was a reason for the High Court to decline jurisdiction, and to refer the Applicant back to the District Court as the proper forum for adjudicating whether the property in dispute had a connection with the Criminal Cases the Applicant was facing. The High Court stated that, indeed, the Applicant's property had been seized and that the authorities were required to keep it in safe custody pending determination of the Criminal Cases the Applicant was facing. For these reasons, on 14 December 2010, the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha dismissed the application for the release of property, as being premature. 59 In the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, in 2009. the Applicant filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 54 of 2009 originating from Criminal Case No. 933 of 2007 under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Act for the charges preferred against him to be discharged. On 11 August 2010, The application was struck 8