Legal Research Training Course - Institute for Judicial Administration Lushoto

Legal Research Training Course - Institute for Judicial Administration Lushoto
Institute of Judicial Administration Lushoto (IJA)

Loading PDF...

This document is 7.8 MB. Do you want to load it?

Error loading PDF
Try reloading the page or downloading the PDF.
Error:

Cited documents 22

Judgment
9
The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the charge valid and the prosecution proved unlawful possession beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Drugs Control and Enforcement Act – charge under amended Act (2017) – amendment did not repeal the principal Act. * Evidence – witness inconsistencies – trivial discrepancies not material to credibility. * Evidence – chain of custody – exhibit handling and transfers properly established (PGO 229(9)). * Evidence – identification of exhibit by arresting officers and chemist. * Criminal burden – defence failed to create reasonable doubt; prosecution proved unlawful possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Reported
Judge concurs with conviction but dissents, arguing the death penalty is unconstitutional and life imprisonment preferable.
Criminal law – Murder – Sentencing – Death penalty – Constitutionality and human rights – Irreversibility and risk of wrongful execution – Life imprisonment as alternative.
Applicant’s prior conduct and an outdated medical report did not establish exceptional circumstances for bail pending appeal.
* Criminal procedure – Bail pending appeal – requires exceptional and unusual circumstances to be shown; distinct from bail pending trial. * Evidence – Ill health as ground for bail pending appeal requires current and corroborative medical evidence or affidavit from prison medical staff. * Prior compliance with bail conditions and administrative convenience are insufficient for bail pending appeal. * Procedural mis-citation that causes no prejudice does not vitiate the application.
Whether the respondents' customary occupancy rights are constitutional property and unlawfully extinguished without compensation.
* Constitutional law — Property — Customary/deemed rights of occupancy as constitutional "property" under Article 24 — deprivation without fair compensation prohibited. * Land law — Compensation — includes value added by occupier (Nyerere Doctrine of Land Value), not limited to unexhausted improvements. * Administrative/constitutional law — Ouster clauses — provisions ousting court jurisdiction unconstitutional; special tribunals must allow review or appeal. * Statute law — Severability — courts should strike down only offending provisions where remainder can operate. * Temporal effect — prior lawful extinguishments before the Bill of Rights remain effective.
An Act extinguishing customary occupancy rights without compensation and ousting courts violates constitutional property and equality rights.
Constitutional law – Land tenure – Validity of Act extinguishing customary/deemed occupancy rights without compensation – Right to property and fair compensation – Access to courts – Ousting judicial jurisdiction – Discrimination and proportionality of limitations on fundamental rights.
Charging the applicant under a repealed statute vitiates prosecution, warranting nullification and immediate release.
Criminal law – indictment must cite the valid statute – prosecution under a repealed law vitiates trial; incurable defect under section 388(1) CPA; revisional powers under section 4(2) AJA to nullify proceedings, quash conviction and order release.
High Court lacked jurisdiction to rehear a bail‑pending‑appeal application already decided; application struck out under functus officio.
* Criminal procedure – bail pending appeal – application struck out where identical earlier application was decided on the merits. * Doctrine of functus officio – once a court decides a matter it cannot normally revisit it. * Medical grounds for bail – alleged ill‑health and need for physiotherapy insufficient to reopen decided application. * Duty to disclose prior proceedings – non‑disclosure noted by court.
Prosecution under a repealed statute vitiates proceedings; convictions are quashed and release, not retrial, may be ordered.
Criminal law — Repeal of statute — Charging under repealed law — Effect of repeal: obliteration absent savings — Proceedings founded on repealed statute are nullities — Appellate jurisdiction s.4(2): quashing null proceedings — Retrial vs release where appellant served substantial time under illegal conviction.
A charge founded on a statute repealed before arraignment is fatal; proceedings nullified and conviction set aside.
Criminal law – Charge must cite valid statutory provision – Repeal of statute (AAA) by FACA (s.73) renders charges under repealed law invalid – Section 135(a)(ii) CPA mandatory – Defect fatal and not cured by s.388(1) CPA – Revisionary powers (AJA s.4(2)) to nullify proceedings – Retrial discretionary where accused served substantial custody.
Ordinance
1

Documents citing this one 0

To the top