Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

Court of Appeal of Tanzania

This is the highest level in the justice delivery system in Tanzania. The Court of Appeal draws its mandate from Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The Court hears appeals  on both point of law and facts for cases originating from the High Court of Tanzania and Magistrates with extended jurisdiction in exercise of their original jurisdiction or appellate and revisional jurisdiction over matters originating in the District Land and Housing Tribunals, District Courts and Courts of Resident Magistrate. The Court also hears similar appeals  from quasi judicial bodies of status equivalent to that of the High Court. It  further hears appeals  on point of law against the decision of the High Court in  matters originating from Primary Courts. The Court of Appeal also exercises jurisdiction on appeals originating from the High Court of Zanzibar except for constitutional issues arising from the interpretation of the Constitution of Zanzibar and matters arising from the Kadhi Court.

Physical address
26 Kivukoni Road Building P.O. Box 9004, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Visit website
https://jmap.judiciary.go.tz/jmap/jmap-coa
9 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
9 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
October 1999
El-Nasr Export and Import Company v Nahdi Trading Company (Civil Reference No. 12 of 1998) [1999] TZCA 97 (29 October 1999)

Civil Practice and Procedure - Stay of Execution — Application to the Court of Appeal for stay of execution of a High Court decision where no Notice to Appeal against it is lodged - Whether the application is competent - rule 9(2)(b) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 1979.

 29 October 1999
Laurean Rugaimukamu vs Editor Mfanyakazi Newspaper and Another (Civil Reference Nb. 12 OF 1996) [1999] TZCA 88 (29 October 1999)
Repeated attempts to obtain costs and interest denied; extension refused as time‑barred and abusive.
Civil procedure – costs – silence in judgment does not imply an award of costs; costs must be claimed and expressly granted. Extension of time – refusal where delay is self‑caused and applications amount to abuse of process. Appellate jurisdiction – correction/variation inappropriate where issue (interest on decretal sum) is a separate matter for the trial court.
 29 October 1999
Laurean Rugaimukamu vs The Editor, Mfanyakazi Newspaper and Another (Civil Reference 12 of 1996) [1999] TZCA 18 (29 October 1999)
Reported
Application for extension to vary judgment to award costs and additional interest dismissed as time‑barred and an abuse of process.
Civil procedure — correction/variation of judgment — extension of time to apply for correction — costs — silence in judgment does not imply costs awarded — abuse of court process; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.2(3)&(5); decretal interest — separate remedy to be pursued in trial court.
 29 October 1999
Rugaimukamu v The Editor, Mfanyakazi Newspaper and Another (Civil Reference No. 12 of 1996) [1999] TZCA 98 (29 October 1999)

Civil Practice and Procedure — Extension of time — Application for extension of time to apply for correction or variation of Judgment — Application filed more than a year after the applicant is made aware of the need for it - The delay is inordinate. Civil Practice and Procedure - Judgment - Correction of errors in a judgment jj - High Court omits to award interest on a decretal amount — Whether that is an error which the Court of Appeal may correct under section 2(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act

 29 October 1999
Augustine Lyatonga Mrema and Others vs Abdallah Majengo and Others (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1999) [1999] TZCA 44 (11 October 1999)
Ex parte interim injunction set aside for failure to justify dispensing with mandatory notice and for being unduly wide.
Civil procedure — Injunctions — Order 37 r.4 (Civil Procedure Code) — Notice of application mandatory except where giving notice would cause undue delay — Burden on applicant to justify dispensing with notice — Ex parte injunction improperly granted where affidavit fails to show reasons — Overbroad injunctions may unlawfully affect civil and political rights.
 11 October 1999
Augustine Lyatonga Mrema and Two Others vs Abdallah Ajengo and Two Others (Civil Appeal 41 of 1999) [1999] TZCA 16 (11 October 1999)
Reported
An ex-parte interim injunction granted without mandatory notice under Order 37 r.4 and without proving good cause is invalid.
Civil procedure — Injunctions — Order 37 r.4 (Civil Procedure Code) — Mandatory notice requirement before granting injunction — Exception requires applicant to prove good cause to dispense with notice — Ex-parte injunction improperly granted where no application or grounds to dispense with notice — Injunction must be appropriately confined and not unduly vague to avoid impinging constitutional/civil rights.
 11 October 1999
Mrema and Others v Ajengo and Others (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1999) [1999] TZCA 96 (11 October 1999)

(From the decision ofthe High Court of Tanzania, Bubeshi, J., dated 14 May 1999) Civil Practice and Procedure - Interim injunction - When it can be granted without serving notice on the respondent - Order 37, rule 4 ofthe Civil Procedure Code 1966. Civil Practice and Procedure — Interim injunction — Reasons to be disclosed for requesting the court to dispense with service of notice — Order 37 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code 1966.

 11 October 1999
Albert and Others v Tumaini University College, Ringa (Civil Application No. 50 of 1999) [1999] TZCA 95 (8 October 1999)

Application for stay of execution ofthe decision ofthe High Court of Tanzania, at Songea, Mwipopo, J., dated 26 June 1999, in Misc. Civil Application No. of 1999) Civil Practice and Procedure - Stay of Execution - Application for stay of execution — Stay of execution sought where there is no court order granting to the respondent any right to execute or to do anything affecting the rights or interests ofthe applicant - Whether the application is competent.

 8 October 1999
Athanas Albert and Four Others vs Tumaini University College, Iringa (Civil Application 50 of 1999) [1999] TZCA 17 (8 October 1999)
Reported
A stay will not lie where the impugned High Court order creates no enforceable right or action to be stayed.
Administrative law; service of appeal documents on a senior officer constitutes valid service; stay of execution—must relate to an order granting rights or directing action; an order that only sets aside another court's injunction may not be the subject of a stay.
 8 October 1999