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

10 judgments

Advanced search

Court registries

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

10 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
March 2003
Bank of Tanzania vs Devram P. Valambhia (Civil Reference No. 4 of 2002) [2003] TZCA 38 (20 March 2003) Order 21 Rule 62 CPC makes objection/attachment (garnishee) orders conclusive unless a suit is instituted; no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal. Civil Procedure – Attachment/garnishee proceedings – Order 21 Rules 57–62 CPC (Tanzania) – Rule 62 renders orders conclusive after investigation unless a suit is instituted – no right of appeal to Court of Appeal against Rule 62 orders – personal costs against counsel require proof and opportunity to be heard.	20 March 2003
Hamisi Rajabu Dibagula vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2001) [2003] TZCA 35 (14 March 2003) Reported Conviction for declaring Jesus not divine quashed for failure to prove intent to wound religious feelings. Criminal law – s.129 Penal Code (uttering words with intent to wound religious feelings) – mens rea requirement; Constitutional freedom of religion (Article 19) and its limits; right to be heard and revisional jurisdiction (s.373 Criminal Procedure Act); inadequacy of trial judgment (s.312).	14 March 2003
Marcky Mhango and Others vs Tanzania Shoe Company Ltd and Another (Civil Application No. 90 of 1999) [2003] TZCA 78 (13 March 2003) A review application must be brought promptly; an unexplained three‑year delay warrants striking it out. Review of judgment – inherent jurisdiction of the Court – no express time limit in Rules but applications must be brought with diligence and within a reasonable time – long unexplained delay (37 months) is grossly inordinate and justifies striking out – preliminary objection challenging substantive basis of review invites merits inquiry and is inappropriate.	13 March 2003
Hussein Ali Dotto vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1996) [2003] TZCA 41 (7 March 2003) Identification by familiar witnesses upheld despite irregular search; use of pangas/knife constitutes armed robbery — appeal dismissed. Criminal law – Robbery with violence – identification evidence where witnesses were familiar with accused – prior description not always decisive; Search and seizure – absence of warrant/receipt renders search irregular but does not necessarily exonerate accused; Proof of ownership of seized property – receipt/description required; Armed robbery – use of pangas/knives qualifies and attracts 30‑year sentence.	7 March 2003
University of Dar Es Salaam vs Richard Kajuna Muzo (Civil Application No. 117 of 2001) [2003] TZCA 90 (7 March 2003) Stay of execution granted because appeal raises prima facie arguable issue on defamation despite unproven claimed public loss. Stay of execution pending appeal; relevance of respondent’s ability to refund decretal amount; balance of convenience and public interest—need for particulars; prospects of success on appeal assessed from record; defamation—effect of institutional categorisation and published prospectus.	7 March 2003
Hemed Mussa Kasamba vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1999) [2003] TZCA 42 (5 March 2003) Uncorroborated co-accused testimony and weak circumstantial evidence rendered the conviction unsafe; appeal allowed. Criminal law – circumstantial evidence – must prove facts yielding an inference of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; Co-accused testimony – inherently suspect, requires warning and corroboration; Doctrine of recent possession – items relied upon must correspond to items charged; Suspicion is insufficient to sustain conviction.	5 March 2003
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Works and Another vs Ebeneza Massawe (Civil Application No. 113 of 2001) [2003] TZCA 89 (5 March 2003) An application to stay execution must be supported by the decree or extracted order; court allowed time to supply it. Civil procedure – stay of execution – requirement that a copy of the decree or extracted order accompany the notice of motion; copy of proceedings insufficient; court discretion to allow supplementary record under Rule 3(2)(a).	5 March 2003
Jafari Jussa vs Nestory Mizambwa t/a Lumbwe Enterprises (Civil Appeal No. 49 for 1998) [2003] TZCA 73 (4 March 2003) A revision application to the High Court against a magistrates' court decision must be brought within 60 days; otherwise it is time-barred. Civil procedure – Revision of magistrates' court decisions – Limitation – Paragraph 21, First Schedule, Limitation Act 1971 applies – Sixty-day time limit for bringing revision applications – Failure to seek extension renders application incompetent.	4 March 2003
Jafari Jussa vs Nestory Mizambwa t/a Lumbwe Enterprises (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1998) [2003] TZCA 72 (4 March 2003) A revision application under s.11(1)(b) must be filed within 60 days; otherwise it is time-barred and incompetent. Magistrates' Courts Act s.11(1)(b) – Revision – Limitation: Law of Limitation Act 1971 (s.3 & First Schedule para.21) applies – revision to District Court decisions must be brought within 60 days; failure warrants incompetence and dismissal.	4 March 2003
National Insurance Corporation vs Peter J. Chagula (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2001) [2003] TZCA 88 (4 March 2003) An appeal was struck out as time‑barred where proceedings had been paid for earlier and no explanation for delay was given. Appeal procedure – Limitation – Appeal filed outside prescribed period; Registrar's certificate/notification cannot cure delay where proceedings were already paid for; preliminary objection on time‑bar upheld; appeal struck out.	4 March 2003