|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2000 |
|
|
Residency for tax depends on registration timing; withholding tax is due if recipient was non‑resident at payment time.
* Tax — Income Tax Act s.2(2)(b)(i) — meaning of "registered" and residency — certificate of compliance under s.320A/321 Cap.212 may confer residence.
* Tax — Withholding tax s.34(1) — obligation to deduct arises upon payment; residency determined at payment time.
* Administrative law — certiorari to quash unlawful tax demand — partial allowance where some collections lawful and others not.
|
20 December 2000 |
|
Watertight single-witness identification upheld; conviction sustained, sentence raised to statutory 30 years and compensation varied.
Criminal law — Armed robbery; visual identification by a single witness — sufficiency and corroboration; materiality of minor contradictions; appellate review of defence credibility; State Attorney’s non-support not binding; Minimum Sentences Act (s.5(ii)(bb)) — mandatory sentence for armed robbery; compensation to reflect value of stolen property.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
The applicant’s review application was dismissed as time-barred, frivolous and an abuse of process.
Limitation — Review applications to Court of Appeal — inordinate delay (28 months) renders application time-barred; Law of Limitation Act inapplicable to Court of Appeal reviews (Abood); advocacy error not sufficient cause; failure to request cross-examination fatal; frivolous/vexatious applications and abuse of process discouraged.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
A review filed 28 months after the judgment was time‑barred; Court of Appeal Rules, not the Limitation Act, govern deadline.
* Civil procedure — Review of Court of Appeal judgment — application dismissed as time‑barred for inordinate delay. * Time limits — Law of Limitation Act does not apply to Court of Appeal; governed by Court of Appeal Rules. * Cross‑examination — no denial established where party’s counsel did not request re‑summoning. * Abuse of process — frivolous/vexatious review applications discouraged. * Advocate’s error — not sufficient cause to enlarge time.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
A trial court cannot revoke and replace an ex‑parte decree to allow parties to renegotiate its amount.
Civil procedure Ex‑parte judgment Lawfulness of revocation and replacement; prohibition on renegotiating decree quantum; Limitation acknowledgement coupled with promise to pay restarts limitation; Appeal leave may be granted suo motu; Advocacy ethics improper for party/agent to act as advocate and witness.
|
18 December 2000 |
(From the Ruling of the High Court of Zanzibar at Vuga, Dourado, J., dated 26 August 1998, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 2 of 1997) Appeals - Leave to appeal - Whether leave to appeal may be granted by the court suo motu. Civil Practice and Procedure - Correction of Errors -Errors committed by parties in drawing up documents - Whether section 130 of the Civil Procedure Decree applies to the correction of such errors - Procedure to follow in rendering corrections. Court of Appeal Rules - Rule 43(a) of the Court ofAppeal Rules providing for mode ofapplyingfor leave to appeal - Whether the rule makes it necessary to apply for leave to appeal - Whether overrides or adds to section 5(l)(c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979 - Whether a judge can grant leave B to appeal suo motu. Limitation - Acknowledgment of time-barred debt and promise to pay it - Whether may give rise to a fresh period of limitation - Sections 19 and 29(a) of the Limitation Decree and section 25 of the Contract Decree. Contract - Acknowledgment of time-barred debt with promise to pay - Whether may give rise to a fresh period of limitation - Section 25 ofthe Contract Decree Chapter 149. Civil Practice and Procedure - Judge revokes and replaces his ex parte judgment - Whether proper for a judge to do so - Principle of functus officio. Civil Practice and Procedure - Decrees - Parties re-negotiate the court’s decree - Whether there is any legal basis or precedent for such re-negotiation.Civil Practice and Procedure - Litigant doubling as counsel for himself- Whether accords with accepted practice |
18 December 2000 |
|
A combined bill of High Court and Court of Appeal costs is incompetent; each court's taxing officer must tax its own costs.
Court of Appeal — Taxation of costs — Jurisdiction of taxing officer under rule 118(1) Court of Appeal Rules 1979; High Court costs to be taxed by Registrar/Deputy Registrar under Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules (GN No. 514/1991); combined bill covering both courts incompetent.
|
14 December 2000 |
|
An unequivocal guilty plea bars appeal; armed robbery conviction and minimum 30-year sentence upheld.
Criminal procedure – Guilty plea – Plea unequivocal – Summary rejection of appeal under section 360(1) Criminal Procedure Act; Armed robbery – use of firearm – minimum sentence under the Minimum Sentences Act upheld.
|
1 December 2000 |
|
Corroborated accomplice evidence and lack of prejudice from witness presence sustain robbery conviction.
* Criminal law – robbery with violence – sufficiency of evidence – corroboration of accomplice evidence by independent proof (disclosure of vehicle registration, discovery of stolen goods, vehicle owner’s confirmation, subsequent sale).
* Evidence – presence of other prosecution witnesses during testimony affects weight not admissibility; no prejudice where testimony unaffected.
* Appeal – second appeal limited to points of law; factual reappraisal and insufficiency of evidence generally not entertained.
* Comparative outcomes – differing results for co-accused may be explained by differences in evidence and do not automatically entitle another accused to acquittal.
|
1 December 2000 |
|
An appeal lacking specified points of law is not "incompetent" if authorised; a meritless appeal should be dismissed, not struck out.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal from subordinate court – Section 6(7)(a) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Appeals limited to points of law; Rule 65(2) – specification of points of law; distinction between incompetent (jurisdictional/procedural defect) and meritless appeals; dismissal appropriate where grounds lack points of law but appeal is authorised.
|
1 December 2000 |
|
Convictions quashed: forgery unproven and particulars for false document omitted essential intent to defraud, a fatal defect.
* Criminal law – Forgery – Essential elements: existence/tendering of document, falsity and intent to defraud – proof required; failure to relate elements to evidence is fatal.
* Criminal procedure – Particulars of offence – Must aver essential ingredients (intent to defraud/deceive) to give accused fair notice; omission fatal.
* Criminal procedure – Curability under s.388 Criminal Procedure Act – Material omissions in particulars that negate essential elements are not curable.
|
1 December 2000 |
|
Reported
Extra-judicial confession to a Justice of the Peace held voluntary and sufficient to uphold murder conviction; custodial confessions lacked independent corroboration.
Criminal law – Murder – Confession – Extra-judicial statement (Exh. P.1) – Voluntariness and admissibility – Retraction and requirement for independent corroboration of confessions made in custody – Conduct after offence (sale of cattle; showing scene) insufficient as independent corroboration unless free and independent.
|
1 December 2000 |
|
Reported
Conviction upheld on recent possession; 1994 amendment mandates 30-year minimum for robberies involving personal violence.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Evidence of recent possession and identification – Minimum Sentences Act (Act No. 6 of 1994) – 30-year minimum where robbery involves personal violence, use of weapon or company.
|
1 December 2000 |
(From the Judgment and Order ofthe High Court ofTanzania at Mwanza, Chipata, J., in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1996) Criminal Law - Robbery with violence • Appellant found in possession ofthe robbed bicycle ten days after the date ofthe robbery - Whether appellant was properly convicted - Section 286 of the Penal Code. Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing - Minimum sentences for robbery and for armed robbery - Section 5(b) of the Minimum Sentences Act as amended by Acts Number 10 of 1989 and 6 of 1994. |
1 December 2000 |
(From the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Mackanja, J., dated 15 June 1999, in Civil Case No. 358 of 1998) Civil Practice and Procedure - Judgment - Default judgment - Whether default judgment may be entered during mediation proceedings - Order VHIA, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code 1966 Civil Practice and Procedure - Alternative Dispute Resolution - Notice of Mediation - Whether notice of mediation may be a basis for entering a default judgment |
1 December 2000 |
|
Applicant failed to show irreparable harm; stay of execution refused and application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution pending appeal; requirement of showing irreparable loss; developments on disputed land compensable by damages; Rule 9(2) Court Rules 1979 (appeal does not bar execution).
|
1 December 2000 |
| November 2000 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed: rape conviction upheld—proof of being under 18, parents’ corroboration and victim’s naming were sufficient.
Criminal law – Rape of a minor under s.130(1)(e) Penal Code as amended – proof of age; Corroboration – parents/relatives may corroborate victim’s evidence; Identification – naming by victim vs descriptive identification; Failure to call witness – when absence does not attract adverse inference; Appellate scope – second appeal confined to points of law.
|
30 November 2000 |
|
Respondent’s failure to take essential steps to institute an appeal justified striking out the notice of appeal under Rule 82.
Civil procedure — Appeal procedure — Failure to take an essential step to institute appeal within prescribed time — Possession of judgment and proceedings — Awaiting Registrar's Certificate not a valid excuse — Striking out notice of appeal under Rule 82; costs awarded.
|
24 November 2000 |
From the Ruling ofthe High Court of Zanzibar at Vuga, Tumaka, Deputy C.J., dated 3 April 2000, in Sessions No.7 of 1999, Constitutional Law - Sovereignty - Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanzania - Whether the constituent parts of the union retained their sovereign status. Criminal Law - Treason - Whether the offence of Treason can be committed against the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar. International Law - Sovereignty - United Republic of Tanzania — Zanzibar and Tanganyika uniting to form the United Republic of Tanzania — Effect on sovereignty of the parties. |
21 November 2000 |
|
Reported
Treason requires allegiance to a sovereign; Zanzibar is not sovereign, so treason is a Union matter against the United Republic.
Constitutional law – Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar – Statehood and sovereignty – Treason requires allegiance to a sovereign – Security is a Union matter – Treason can be committed only against the United Republic, not the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar.
|
21 November 2000 |
|
A Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to nullify a parliamentary election after Parliament's dissolution and absence of a sitting member.
* Election law – Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal – Appeal seeking nullification of parliamentary election; effect of Parliament's dissolution on jurisdiction. * Election law – Time limits – Section 115(2) (two-year rule) applies to High Court; appeals must nonetheless be determined expeditiously. * Civil procedure – Inordinate delay in preparation of record – registry responsibility noted but does not cure jurisdictional defect. * Electoral offences – Bribery and treating raised as serious issues but not decided where relief cannot be granted.
|
10 November 2000 |
|
Court lacked jurisdiction to void a parliamentary election post-dissolution; appeal struck out and each party to bear own costs.
* Constitutional/electoral law – election petitions – jurisdiction of appellate court to nullify parliamentary election post-dissolution – necessity of a sitting member and sitting Parliament for relief. * Elections Act 1985 s115(2) – time limits for determination of election petitions; purpose to expedite electoral disputes. * Civil procedure – competence of appeal where record preparation and registry delay produce post-dissolution hearing. * Electoral offences – bribery and treating raised at trial but not determined due to lack of jurisdiction.
|
10 November 2000 |
|
Appeal struck out for lack of jurisdiction because Parliament was dissolved and no sitting member existed to justify nullifying the election.
Electoral law – jurisdiction to invalidate parliamentary election results – effect of dissolution of Parliament on election petitions and appeals; procedural delay and record preparation; application and purpose of Elections Act s.115(2).
|
10 November 2000 |
(From the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Iringa, Mwaikasu, J., dated 15 November 1997, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 1 of. 1995) Election Petitions — Appeals - Delay in processing appeal record - Appeal seeking a declaration that election results were null and void - Appeal called up for hearing after Parliament is dissolved - Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Civil Practice and Procedure - Appeals - Appeals in election petitions - Appeal seeking a declaration that election results were null and void - Appeal seeking the relief after Parliament is dissolved - Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction. |
10 November 2000 |
| October 2000 |
|
|
Leave to appeal granted; party-membership dispute remained live and procedural objections were dismissed.
* Electoral law – party membership – whether membership can be imposed on a person; * Justiciability – whether an application is overtaken by events after an election; * Constitutional law – power to interpret the Constitution of Zanzibar and effect on High Court supervisory jurisdiction; * Civil procedure – admissibility of affidavits and cross-examination.
|
30 October 2000 |
|
A plaint that discloses a cause of action but is ambiguous should be amended, not struck out.
Commercial procedure – preliminary objections to plaint – Order VII R.5 CPC – requirement that plaint show defendant’s interest and liability; cause of action test (four corners of the plaint); misjoinder/vagueness where multiple defendants sued in separate capacities; amendment of pleadings rather than striking out.
|
30 October 2000 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal on condition the applicant deposits 10m/= as security.
* Civil procedure — Stay of execution pending appeal — Irreparable harm to appellant — Ability of judgment creditor to repay — Conditional stay on provision of security (deposit of 10m/=).
|
26 October 2000 |
(Application for Stay of Execution of the decision ofthe High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, Mroso, J., in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1997) Civil Practice and Procedure - Application for stay of execution - Principles to take into account when considering such application. |
26 October 2000 |
(From the decision of a single Judge of the Court of Appeal, Ramadhani, J.A dated 27 July 1998, Civil Application No. 3 of 1995) Appeal - Memorandum of appeal - Decree appealed against - Copy of decree to be attached to the memorandum of appeal - Whether a certified copy of decree is mandatory - Order XXXIX, rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Code 1966 Appeal - Decree appealed against - Decree of the Court of the Resident‘ Magistrate - Whether it must be certified - Decree signed and sealed needed no certifying. |
26 October 2000 |
(Application for Revision from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, Munuo, J., dated 3 May 1996, in (PC) Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1995) Court ofAppeal - Jurisdiction - Suo motu revisional jurisdiction of the Court ofAppeal —Whether the jurisdiction may be invoked where a party forfeits the right of appeal out of his own fault - Section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979. Court ofAppeal — Revisional jurisdiction - May be exercised where the appellate process has been blocked by judicial process - Whether the Court of Appeal Rules amount to a judicial block |
26 October 2000 |
|
Reported
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause for extension; Order 39 Rule 1(1) requires a copy, not a certified copy, of the decree.
Civil procedure – Order 39 Rule 1(1) – memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the decree (not necessarily a certified copy); certified copies preferred in practice for authenticity. Extension of time – discretionary – applicant must show sufficient cause; belated invocation of alleged illegality not excusing inordinate delay.
|
26 October 2000 |
(From the decision and order ofthe High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, Mroso, J., dated 25 July 1995, in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1994) Appeals - Second appeal to the High Court - Additional evidence taken by way of affidavit — Section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1984. Natural justice - Right to cross-examine a witness -Additional evidence by way of affidavit taken on appeal - Natural justice required an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent. Civil Practice and Procedure - Appeal — Additional evidence taken by way of affidavit on second appeal - appellant not afforded opportunity to crossexamine deponent - Whether High Court was wrong - Omission not occasioning injustice — Effect thereof- Rule 108 of the Court ofAppeal Rules 1979. |
26 October 2000 |
|
Reported
Revision refused where applicant abandoned appeal and available procedural remedies; revisional power not a substitute for appeal.
* Appellate jurisdiction – revisional powers suo motu – limits of revision under Appellate Jurisdiction Act – not a substitute for appeal. * Procedure – delay and abandonment of appeal – Rule 57 reference and Rule 83 extension as available remedies. * Ignorance of law and unexplained delay do not justify revisional intervention.
|
26 October 2000 |
(Application for Revision from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, Mushi, J, dated 26 and 27 June 2000, in Miscellaneous Civil Case Numbers 73 and 27 of 2000) Civil Practice and Procedure - Revision - Revision sought in a matter that can be appealed against - Whether revisional jurisdiction may be invoked. Civil Practice and Procedure - Revision - Application for revision seeking an order to transfer the case to another judge on account of bias - First trial judge never refused to disqualify himself- Whether application proper. |
26 October 2000 |
|
Reported
Revision will not be entertained where an appeal with leave lies unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
* Appellate procedure – revisional jurisdiction – applicability where appeal with leave lies – requirement of exceptional circumstances to invoke revision.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – competence of revision where alternative appeal remedy available.
* Injunctions – ex parte or without revocation of earlier hearing date – whether such conduct gives rise to exceptional circumstances for revision.
* Transfer/disqualification – revision not available where no order on transfer/disqualification exists to be revised.
|
26 October 2000 |
|
Applicants failed to show exceptional circumstances to invoke revision where an appeal with leave was available; revision dismissed.
* Appellate procedure – Revisional jurisdiction – Applicants with right of appeal (with leave) must show exceptional circumstances to invoke revision. * Procedural irregularity – Temporary injunction – Granting injunction without revoking earlier order or in applicant's absence not necessarily exceptional. * Transfer/disqualification – No basis for revision where no order to transfer or disqualify was made.
|
26 October 2000 |
|
High Court may receive additional evidence on appeal; omission to allow cross‑examination was error but not prejudicial.
Appellate procedure — power of High Court to take additional evidence under section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act; natural justice and the right to cross‑examine deponents of additional evidence; immaterial procedural errors and Rule 108 (errors not affecting merits).
|
24 October 2000 |
|
Reported
Service on the party or an adult family member can satisfy rule requirements; serving the advocate is not always required.
Procedure — Service of documents — Service on party vs advocate; compliance with Court of Appeal Rules 83(2) and 90(1); valid substituted service — record left with adult family member under rule 20(1) read with Order V rule 15 (CPC amendments).
|
19 October 2000 |
(Application to strike out an appeal from the judgment and decree ofthe High Court of Tanzania at Moshi, Munuo, J., dated 15 January 1998 in Civil Appeal No.38ofl993) Civil Practice and Procedure - Appeal - Service in appeals to the Court of Appeal- Service of memorandum ofappeal and record of appeal- Whether service on the party and not the advocate is good service — Rule 90(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1979. Appeal - Service - Letter to the Registrar asking for proceedings - Copy of the letter to be sent to the respondent - Rule 83(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1979. Civil Practice and Procedure - Appeal - Service of record of appeal - Record of appeal served on adult member of the household of the family of the respondent - whether sufficient service - Rule 20(1) of the Court of Appeal Rule 1979, and Order V, rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code 1966 |
19 October 2000 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal due to applicant’s long possession and family dependence.
Stay of execution – pending appeal – balance of convenience – long possession and livelihood – potential hardship – discretion as to costs in family disputes
|
17 October 2000 |
(From the decision of the High Court at Arusha, Mroso, J., dated 3 June 1998, in Civil Appeal No.36 of 1997) Civil Practice and Procedure - Stay of execution - Application for stay of execution pending appeal - Immediate execution will dispossess applicant of land she has been occupying for a long time - Dispossession before final determination of dispute not justified. |
17 October 2000 |
(From the Ruling of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Mapigano, Mkwawa and Bubeshi JJ., dated 24 October 1997, in Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 30 of 1975) Labour Law - Retrenchment of employees - Minister’s decision to confirm retrenchment faulted by the High Court- Whether the High Court is automatically bound to issue the orders of mandamus and certiorari. Prerogative Orders - Application for orders of certiorari and mandamus and certiorari - High Court finds that the Minister’s decision is legally erroneous - Whether High Court has discretion not to grant the orders |
6 October 2000 |
(From the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Chipeta, J., dated 9 August 1999, in Civil Case No. 326 of 1997) Civil Practice and Procedure - Execution - Execution of decree for delivery of immovable property - Whether execution order is necessary for effectual execution - Order XXI, rule 33(f) of Civil Procedure Code 1966. |
5 October 2000 |
|
Reported
Stay refused because the decree was already executed by delivery of possession, leaving nothing to stay.
• Civil procedure — Stay of execution pending appeal — stay cannot be granted where decree already satisfied by delivery of possession.
• Execution of judgment — physical entry or peaceful delivery may complete execution without a formal writ.
• Interlocutory injunction — injunction in separate proceedings does not automatically vitiate possession under a decree if it concerns different subject-matter.
• Capacity/security — issue whether a specified corporation in receivership can bind property by security noted but not decided.
• Procedural — whether an appeal was filed out of time is relevant but not determinative where decree has been executed.
|
5 October 2000 |
| September 2000 |
|
|
Court refused stay of execution pending review for lack of prima facie success and inapplicability of rule 3.
• Civil procedure – Stay of execution – application pending review – requirement of prima facie likelihood of success and potential to render remedy nugatory; • Civil procedure – Court Rules (rule 3) – scope limited to appeals; not readily usable for review applications; • Damages – general damages – no requirement to plead rate of interest; interest is at court’s discretion; • Procedural fairness – opportunity to be heard – absence of hearing only where party was not addressed in record.
|
15 September 2000 |
|
Bank entitled to combine accounts and set off overdraft funds to meet loan obligations; non est factum and lien claims dismissed.
Banking law - combination of accounts / set-off; validity and effect of Banker's Order Card; non est factum; notice requirement to combine accounts; bank's lien on customers credit balance.
|
15 September 2000 |
|
Bank entitled to combine customer's same-branch accounts and deduct funds; BOC valid and non est factum rejected.
Banking law – Banker–customer relationship – Combination of accounts / set-off – Right to combine accounts within same branch; Banker’s Order Card (BOC) – validity and effect; Non est factum – rejection where agreement and terms were known; Bank balances – no proprietary lien; Notice – required only where agreement keeps accounts separate (exceptions apply).
|
15 September 2000 |
|
Court entered judgment on defendants' admission, awarding principal, interest at 12% and costs, with payment due by 31 December 2000.
Civil procedure – Admission of liability – Order XII r.4 CPC – Judgment on admission; Loan recovery – interest and payment deadline; Costs awarded to successful plaintiff.
|
11 September 2000 |
(From the Judgment ofthe High Court ofTanzania at Dar es Salaam, Rubama, J., dated 3 August 1990, in Civil Case No. 159 of 1986) jj Civil Practice and Procedure - Ex-parte proof- Application to set aside order for ex-parte proof- Suit dismissed for non-appearance and defendant granted leave to prove counter claim ex parte - Locus standi in subsequent application to restore the suit - Order IX, rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code |
11 September 2000 |
|
A plaintiff dismissed for non-appearance has a statutory right to apply to set aside the dismissal and must be heard.
Civil procedure – dismissal for non-appearance – Order 9 r.8 and r.9 CPC – right to apply to set aside dismissal – locus standi to institute setting-aside application – ex parte proof by affidavit vs oral evidence – procedural fairness.
|
11 September 2000 |