|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2003 |
|
|
Reported
Appellate courts must give reasoned judgments; doubtful identification and unjustified sentence enhancement require quashing conviction.
Criminal law – appeal – requirement under section 276(1) for judgments to state points for determination and reasons; identification evidence – visual identification and adequacy of descriptions; sentencing – limits of judicial notice and improper enhancement of sentence without factual basis. |
31 October 2003 |
Criminal Practice and Procedure — Appeals - Second appeal - Duty of an appellate Court on a second appeal - Section 276(1) of the Criminal Procedure Decree of Zanzibar.
Evidence - Misdirection or non-direction on the evidence - Duty of appellate Court when there have been mis-directions or non-directions by the Court(s) below.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Judgment - What a judgment should contain - Section 276(1) ofthe Criminal Procedure Decree Zanzibar. |
31 October 2003 |
|
Reported
Administrative Law - Delegation of Powers — Power to issue clove export permit - Power vested in a Sheha - Whether that power may be exercised by a shehia councillor - Regional Administration Authority Act Number 1 of 1998, Interpretation of Laws and General Provisions Act 1984, and the Cloves Act 1985. |
31 October 2003 |
|
Reported
A clove-transport permit issued by an advisory council member and lacking required purpose is invalid; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law — Cloves Act 1985 s3(1),(2): export/transportation requires valid permit stating purpose and reason; Sheha alone (or authorized deputy) may issue permits — Shehia Advisory Council members lack licensing authority; Interpretation Act s63(4) applies only where person is charged with office duties; omission of mandatory particulars invalidates permit.
|
31 October 2003 |
|
Appeal allowed: 21‑year manslaughter sentence set aside after judge relied on irrelevant, unproved factors under s.320.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentencing court’s reception of evidence under s.320 Criminal Procedure Act – Relevance of deceased’s circumstances to sentencing the accused – Appellate interference where sentencing rests on irrelevant or unproven factors.
|
31 October 2003 |
|
Failure to inform accused of right to counsel does not void trial absent state-funded legal aid; gaps in chain of custody raised tampering concerns.
Criminal procedure – right to legal representation – s.162 Criminal Procedure Decree – statute confers right to be defended but does not obligate court to inform accused unless state-funded legal aid arises. Criminal procedure – role of presiding officer – duty to protect unrepresented accused does not require impermissible participation; no automatic nullity. Evidence – missing witness – prosecution not obliged to call every officer absent materiality; no adverse inference without showing witness would add material evidence. Evidence – chain of custody – unexplained delays and lack of custody record between seizure and analysis raise real risk of tampering of exhibits.
|
31 October 2003 |
|
Appellate court quashed conviction and sentence where lower courts failed to analyze evidence and sentence was improperly enhanced by judicial notice.
Criminal procedure — Requirement under Section 276(1) for judgments to state points for determination, reasons and decision — Non-compliance renders judgment inadequate. Appellate review — Second appeal — Court of Appeal may re-evaluate evidence where lower courts failed to analyze or misappreciated evidence (Salum Mhando principle). Evidence — Identification — Visual identification by eyewitnesses must be specific and proved beyond reasonable doubt; general descriptions are unsafe. Sentencing — Judicial notice — Enhancement of sentence cannot be based on judicial notice of prevalence of crime absent facts on record.
|
31 October 2003 |
|
Reported
Revision unavailable where interlocutory refusal to stay for arbitration shows no illegality or exceptional circumstance.
Commercial Division — interlocutory refusal to stay for arbitration — competence of revision under s.5(2)(d) AJA — revisional jurisdiction requires illegality/irregularity — Halais exceptional circumstances not established. |
30 October 2003 |
|
Stay of execution granted where award risked rendering appeal nugatory and applicant faced irreparable hardship.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution pending appeal — Criteria: irreparable loss, appeal rendered nugatory, balance of convenience, prospects of success; Damages — assessment of manifest excessiveness relevant to stay.
|
17 October 2003 |
|
Applicant granted interim injunction restraining respondent from granting tax remission for imported sugar pending suit.
Interim injunctions – prima facie/serious triable issue; irreparable harm; balance of convenience – application to restrain government tax remissions on imported sugar; alleged implied government obligation under sale agreements to maintain anti-dumping measures; Government Notice No. 68 of 2003; authorities: Giella v Cassman Brown; Atilio v Mbowe; American Cyanamid.
|
13 October 2003 |
|
Whether a cause of action accrues when the guarantor debits the respondent's account, affecting limitation.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections – sufficiency of a plaint to disclose a cause of action where guarantee allegedly contravenes foreign exchange law. Limitation – accrual of cause of action – where relief is founded on payment by guarantor, limitation runs from date of debit/payment; application of s.6 and s.26(c) Law of Limitation Act. Foreign exchange regulation compliance – alleged illegality of guarantee/payment may ground cause of action. Arbitration – setting aside awards – inapplicable where no petition to set aside was filed in High Court.
|
9 October 2003 |
|
The appellant's murder conviction was quashed because sole eyewitness identification was unsafe and uncorroborated.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification by a single youthful eyewitness – necessity of careful analysis of surrounding circumstances and opportunity to observe. Evidence – Single witness rule (s.143) – requirement for corroboration or additional evidence when conditions for reliable identification are poor. Murder – proof of malice aforethought – not to be inferred where primary identification and injury evidence are inconsistent.
|
9 October 2003 |
|
Reported
Failure to file the mandatory affidavit in opposition left the petitioner's debt claim uncontroverted, establishing locus standi.
Company law – Winding-up – s.167(e) Companies Ordinance (company unable to pay debts) – Locus standi of petitioner – Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1929, rule 35(1) – Mandatory filing and service of affidavit in opposition – Answer cannot substitute for affidavit – Uncontroverted debt supports winding-up petition.
|
7 October 2003 |
|
Reported
Company Law — Winding Up - Company’s inability to pay its debts — Repeated demands made in vain to the respondent to pay the appellant TZS. 240.5 million - Whether the respondent was unable to pay its debts - Section 167(e) of the Companies Ordinance Chapter 212.
Company Law - Winding Up - Petition for winding up - Appellant filed a verifying affidavit together with the petition on 29 March 2000 and the respondent filed an answer to the petition on 30 May 2000 - Whether the respondent legally filed a proper reply to the petition - Rule 35(1) of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1929.
Company Law - Winding Up - Petition for winding up - Locus standi of the petitioner - Petitioner not being a shareholder of the company — Whether may have locus standi to petition. |
7 October 2003 |
|
A s.24(1)(b) reinstatement order must be implemented under s.25(1)(a); s.40A(5) compensation alternative does not apply.
Labour law – Security of Employment Act – interpretation and interplay of sections 24(1)(b), 25(1)(a) and 40A(5); scope of Conciliation Board orders; when compensation lies in lieu of reinstatement; review and enforcement of Board orders by courts; remedy where employer dissolved.
|
7 October 2003 |
|
Reported
Where a Board orders reinstatement under s24(1)(b) with no Ministerial reference, the employer must reinstate; s40A(5) is a distinct alternative remedy.
Employment law – Security of Employment Act: distinction between section 24(1)(b)/section 25(1)(a) (Board orders reinstatement; compulsory implementation where no Ministerial reference) and section 40A(5) (alternative remedy: statutory compensation plus 12 months' wages where orders under s40A are not complied with); improper application of inapplicable statutory provision by lower courts; enforcement and appropriate remedy where reinstatement is impossible due to employer dissolution.
|
7 October 2003 |
|
Where a Conciliation Board orders reinstatement under s.24(1)(b), the employer must reinstate under s.25(1)(a); s.40A(5) is a distinct alternative remedy.
Employment law – Security of Employment Act – enforcement of Conciliation Board order for reinstatement under s.24(1)(b) – implementation under s.25(1)(a) – no option to pay statutory compensation in lieu. Employment law – s.40A(5) – alternative remedy where reinstatement ordered under s.40A and employer fails to comply (statutory compensation plus 12 months’ wages). Procedural error – courts below applied inapplicable provision and reviewed Conciliation Board decision.
|
7 October 2003 |
|
|
1 October 2003 |