|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2004 |
|
|
A notice of appeal against the decree is essential before the Court of Appeal can grant a stay of execution.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution; requirement of notice of appeal against the decree (Rule 9(2) and Rule 76); time limitation for stay applications (60-day guideline); interlocutory nature of stay; remedy after refusal of extension—fresh application to Court of Appeal.
|
31 December 2004 |
|
Confessions corroborated by recovery and recent possession sustain robbery convictions; 30‑year minimum sentences for armed robbery upheld.
* Criminal law – Robbery – Confession admissibility – voluntariness and after‑the‑fact allegations of torture. * Criminal law – Recent possession doctrine – recovery of stolen bicycle (serial number) as corroboration. * Evidence – Identification of stolen property – sufficiency and corroboration. * Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act – armed robbery attracts statutory 30‑year minimum.
|
21 December 2004 |
|
Failure to indicate tenth lines and omission of non‑relevant documents do not render an appeal incompetent.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 10(5): requirement to indicate every tenth line on each page of the record – non‑compliance inconvenient but not fatal.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 89(1)(f): inclusion of affidavits and documents in record – proviso allows omission of documents not relevant to matters in controversy.
* Civil procedure – Preliminary objections – when omissions in the record constitute grounds for preliminary objection versus matters to be raised in defence to grounds of appeal.
* Civil procedure – Rectification – defects in the record of appeal are curable by filing a fresh or supplementary record in accordance with the Rules.
|
16 December 2004 |
|
Originating Summons inappropriate for disputed facts; submissions cannot substitute for evidence; retrial ordered.
* Civil procedure — Originating Summons (Order X) — limited, summary procedure — inappropriate where disputes of fact require oral evidence.
* Evidence — counsel’s written submissions cannot substitute for oral evidence — disputed facts must be proved in court.
* Evidence — statutory declaration not produced at trial cannot be relied on as proof.
* Remedy — procedural irregularity warrants quashing proceedings and ordering retrial.
* Case management — improper re‑assignment of judge discouraged.
|
16 December 2004 |
|
An appeal lacking a valid decree or order in the record is incompetent and must be struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure – Record of appeal – requirement that decree or order appealed against be included in the record (Rule 89(2)(v)).
* Civil Procedure Decree – Order 23 r.7 and Order 46 r.35(4) – decree/order must bear the date and be signed by the judge who pronounced the decision.
* Validity of decrees/orders – a decree signed by a judge other than the one who gave the judgment is invalid.
* Procedural cure – filing a supplementary record after a preliminary objection cannot cure an already existing defect; such appeals are incompetent and struck out.
* Preliminary objections – notice under Court Rules (Rule 100) and Court’s discretion to adjourn and hear substantive points.
|
16 December 2004 |
|
An appeal lacking a valid decree signed by the judge who pronounced judgment is incompetent and struck out.
* Civil procedure – validity of decrees/orders – must be signed by the judge who pronounced the judgment (Order 23 r.7; Order 46 r.35(4)).
* Appeals – Record of appeal – requirement to include decree/order under Rule 89(2)(v); absence renders appeal incompetent.
* Procedure – supplementary record filed after preliminary objection cannot cure an existing defect.
* Procedure – preliminary objection notice (Rule 100) and the Court’s discretion to entertain late objections.
* Consequence – incompetent appeals are struck out with costs.
|
16 December 2004 |
|
An appeal is incompetent and struck out if the record lacks a valid decree or order signed by the judge who pronounced judgment.
Civil procedure — Record of appeal — Requirement to include decree/order — Validity of decree signed by judge other than one who pronounced judgment (Order 23 r.7; Order 46 r.35(4)) — Incompetency of appeal where decree/order missing or invalid — Supplementary record filed after preliminary objection does not cure defect — Rule 89(2)(v) Court of Appeal Rules.
|
16 December 2004 |
|
Notice of appeal struck out where intended appellant failed to institute appeal or take essential steps within prescribed time.
Civil procedure – appeal procedure – Rule 82 and Rule 83 Court Rules – failure to institute appeal by lodging memorandum and filing record – failure to take essential step – Rule 84 consequences – striking out notice of appeal – substituted service permissible where advocate withdraws and no known address.
|
14 December 2004 |
|
Stay application struck out for failing to annex the extracted decree; preliminary objection sustained.
* Civil procedure — Stay of execution — customary requirement that application be accompanied by extracted decree or clear terms of the order sought to be stayed; exceptions where affidavit states terms or applicant reasonably cannot obtain decree; lack of diligence justifies striking out.
|
14 December 2004 |
|
Failure to prove service of a notice of motion under Rule 52(1) results in dismissal of the application.
* Civil procedure – Service of notice of motion – Rule 52(1) Court Rules, 1979 – requirement to serve notice of motion and affidavits on all necessary parties not less than two clear days before hearing – absence of proof of service fatal; application dismissed. * Application to strike out notice of appeal – procedural compliance – proof of service essential; good-faith belief insufficient.
|
13 December 2004 |
|
A clerical error in a notice of appeal is curable; reputational harm alone does not justify staying execution of a money judgment.
* Civil procedure – Notice of appeal – Form D requirements – clerical error as to case year – defect curable where contents clearly identify the decision appealed.
* Civil procedure – Stay of execution – irreparable injury – monetary decrees ordinarily not causing irreparable loss where repayment is possible; reputational harm insufficient.
* Civil procedure – Balance of convenience – stay is exceptional and requires substantial reasons to deny immediate enforcement.
|
10 December 2004 |
|
Application for injunctive relief struck out for failure to serve notice and non-compliance with Court Rules.
Court of Appeal – civil procedure – competence of application – service of notice of motion – compliance with Rule 52(a) – striking out under Rule 3(2)(a) – costs.
|
10 December 2004 |
|
Whether an excessive instruction fee for an appeal on a preliminary objection is reasonable under Court of Appeal taxing rules.
Costs — Taxation of bill of costs — Instruction fees — Reasonableness under Rule 118 and Third Schedule paras 9(1)–9(2) — Appeal confined to preliminary objection — Taxing officer’s discretionary assessment.
|
2 December 2004 |
|
Review applications to the Court of Appeal must be filed within 60 days; otherwise they are struck out.
* Civil procedure — Review — Limitation period for applications to the Court of Appeal — Court fixed sixty (60) days from date of judgment for review applications; * Civil procedure — Law of Limitation Act inapplicable to Court of Appeal review — case law governs; * Civil procedure — Delay and special circumstances — party seeking to excuse delay must apply for enlargement of time and plead special circumstances; * Procedure — When Court raises limitation issue, it may strike out time‑barred application and refuse costs.
|
1 December 2004 |
| November 2004 |
|
|
Stay denied where limited preservation grant and unsupported assertions of likely waste failed to justify suspension of administration.
Probate and Administration—limited grant of letters of administration—stay of execution pending appeal—applicant must show particularized risk of waste; unsupported general allegations insufficient—prima facie success on appeal is relevant but its assessment may be premature without fuller argument and evidence.
|
30 November 2004 |
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure - Applications - Application for review - Order L, rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Decree.
Civil Practice and Procedure - Review — Application for review - Jurisdiction for review by a judge who made original decision sought to be reviewed - Order L, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Decree. |
26 November 2004 |
|
Reported
A review must be heard by the judge who made the order if available; otherwise the review decision is void.
Civil Procedure Decree, Order L Rule 5 – review jurisdiction – mandatory requirement that the judge who made the decree hears any review if attached and not precluded; lack of jurisdiction renders proceedings a nullity; procedural impropriety in one judge overturning fellow judge's decision by review.
|
26 November 2004 |
|
Whether an unsolicited High Court certificate validates appeal from Primary Court and whether disturbing concurrent factual findings was justified.
• Appeals from Primary Courts – requirement of High Court certificate under s.5(2)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act; • Whether High Court may certify points of law not specifically applied for when granting leave; • Appellate interference with concurrent findings of fact – sufficiency of grounds; • Compensation for improvements – market value vs. Government Valuer evaluation; • Locus standi and proof of authority or administration in land disputes.
|
26 November 2004 |
|
Appeal struck out as incompetent where no valid extension or leave to appeal was granted within statutory time.
* Appellate procedure – requirement of leave to appeal from subordinate court decisions (s.5(1)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act) – time limits under Rule 43(a) Court of Appeal Rules.
* Extension of time – High Court’s power to extend time to apply for leave governed by s.11(1) of the Act, not Rule 8 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
* Procedural requirements – no rule mandates attaching judgment/record to an application for leave; failure to do so does not validate an otherwise defective leave/extension.
|
26 November 2004 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure -Assessors - Failure of trial judge to sum up the case to the assessors before obtaining their opinion — Effect of such failure — Section 256(1) Criminal Procedure Decree Chapter 14 of the Laws of Zanzibar. |
26 November 2004 |
|
Failure to sum up to assessors and unexplained judicial transfer vitiated the manslaughter trial; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Trials with assessors – Whether a judge must sum up to assessors and record their opinions; statutory 'may' versus established practice; transfer of cases between judges – requirement for reasons, potential prejudice, and role of Chief Justice/ Judge in-charge; effect of judge's retirement under Article 95(3) of the Zanzibar Constitution.
|
26 November 2004 |
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure — Exhibits -Handling of Exhibits Exhibits handled in a way that makes tampering with them possible — Effect thereof.
Civil Practice and Procedure — Search — Mandatory conditions to observe in conducting a search - Section 114 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Decree Chapter 14 of the Laws of Zanzibar.
Civil Practice and Procedure - Functus officio - When a judge becomes functus officio. |
26 November 2004 |
|
Court allowed appeal, affirming lower courts' finding of sale and the respondent's locus standi; High Court erred.
Appellate jurisdiction — requirement of High Court certificate under s.5(2)(c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Appeal against concurrent findings of fact — interference by higher court; Evidence — sufficiency to prove sale of land; Locus standi — heir's standing to sue; Compensation for improvements — valuation method left undecided.
|
26 November 2004 |
|
High Court improperly disturbed concurrent factual findings; appeal allowed and High Court certificate upheld.
* Appellate procedure – certification of point of law under section 5(2)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – certificate valid though not specifically applied for where leave application raised points of law.
* Civil procedure – interference with concurrent findings of fact – higher court to show sufficient grounds before upsetting lower courts' factual conclusions.
* Property – proof of sale and possession of land – adequacy of evidence to establish purchase.
* Locus standi – heirship as basis for instituting land recovery suit.
* Limitation – assessment of whether suit was time-barred.
|
26 November 2004 |
|
Reported
Islamic Law - Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal - Question of inheritance among Muslims coming within the jurisdiction of Kadhis' Courts - Whether Court of Appeal of Tanzania has jurisdiction over the matter — Article 96(2) of the Constitution of Zanzibar 1984.
Islamic Law - Jurisdiction — Respondent claims inheritance of a house under Islamic law - Applicant claims right of ownership of the house under Contract of Sale - Whether Kadhi's Court has jurisdiction to determine the question of sale.
Constitutional Law - Revision of decisions originating from and determined in Kadhis ’ Courts - Matter may entail interpretation of a provision of the Constitution of Zanzibar 1984 - Whether the Court of Appeal of Tanzania has jurisdiction to do so - Article 96(2) ofthe Constitution of Zanzibar. |
26 November 2004 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Appeal - Summary dismissal of appeal - Whether the High Court has power to summarily dismiss an appeal.
Criminal Practice and Procedure — Appeal - Power of the High Court to summarily dismiss an appeal - Whether the court may dismiss an appeal summarily after it has allowed the parties to argue the appeal on merit — Section 328 of the Criminal Procedure Decree. |
26 November 2004 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction to revise an appealable conviction the applicant failed to appeal; revisional ruling set aside.
Criminal procedure – Revision jurisdiction – Section 340(5) Criminal Procedure Decree (Cap.14) – Where an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, revisional proceedings by the party who could have appealed are not maintainable – Revisional orders made without jurisdiction are nullities – Competence of appeal.
|
26 November 2004 |
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure - Leave to appeal to Court of Appeal - Whether there was a legal point worth consideration of the Court of Appeal. |
19 November 2004 |
|
Liability conceded but damages reduced due to failure to prove deceased’s income and improper apportionment procedure.
Fatal accidents – assessment of damages – requirement to prove deceased’s earnings and dependants’ pecuniary loss; application of Davies v. Powell Duffryn methodology; inadmissibility of speculative project values; necessity for court-recorded apportionment among dependants; appellate powers to vary or remit award where evidence is inadequate.
|
17 November 2004 |
|
Reported
Court reduced speculative fatal-accident award for lack of evidence and ordered formal apportionment by the trial judge.
* Fatal accidents – assessment of damages – must estimate deceased's lost earnings, deduct personal expenses, determine dependants' annual benefit and apply multiplier (Davies v. Powell Duffryn; Taylor v. O'Connor). * Evidence – pleaded income disputed must be proved; speculative project valuations/investments insufficient. * Apportionment – division among dependants is an essential part of judgment and must be recorded. * Appellate relief – court may vary quantum but should not substitute calculation where evidence is inadequate; may remit or accept parties' offer.
|
17 November 2004 |
|
Omission of village in the information was not a manifest error; review application dismissed.
Criminal law; review of Court of Appeal decision; manifest error on face of record; omission of location in charge; identity established by admissions and witness evidence; inherent power to review.
|
17 November 2004 |
|
Notice of appeal valid when lodged; later agent-termination letter and rejected supplementary record could not justify striking out stay application.
Court of Appeal — strike-out of stay application — validity of notice of appeal determined by date of lodgment — inadmissibility of relying on rejected supplementary record — requirement to give reasons when upholding procedural objections — distinction between stay of execution and prohibition proceedings.
|
17 November 2004 |
|
Employees terminated and ordered reinstated were not entitled to arrears for the absence period; compensation under s.40A(5) governs entitlement.
Employment law — Security of Employment Act s.40A(4) and (5) — reinstatement orders — entitlement to arrears of wages for period of absence — employer's option to pay statutory compensation after 14 days — effect of pending judicial proceedings; functus officio — variation of court orders without review; non-statutory allowances and entitlement.
|
17 November 2004 |
|
Reported
A reference under Rule 57(1)(b) is informal; adding or withdrawing respondents by letter is permissible, and a stay requires notice, not leave.
* Court of Appeal procedure – Rule 57(1)(b) – informal written references to Registrar – different from formal applications under Rules 45/46.
* Civil procedure – amendment of parties – Rule 47 inapplicable to Rule 57 references; adding respondent to a reference does not require prior leave under Rule 47.
* Civil procedure – withdrawal of reference – letter to Registrar acceptable; Registrar may record withdrawal under Rule 3(2)(a).
* Stay of execution – Rule 9(2) – notice of appeal is prerequisite for stay, not leave to appeal; stay to be decided on merits.
|
12 November 2004 |
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure - Reference - Application for reference — Amendment of the letter applying for reference - Whether it is necessary to obtain leave of the court before making the amendment - Rule 47(1) and (2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 1979.
Civil Practice and Procedure - Stay of execution - Whether leave to appeal is a e condition precedent for grant of stay of execution — Rule 9(2 (b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1979. |
12 November 2004 |
|
Leave to appeal granted where respondent failed to serve submissions, resulting in the applicant being condemned unheard.
Civil procedure — Leave to appeal — Ex parte rulings — Failure to serve written submissions — Condemned unheard — Admission by silence — Relevance of locus standi in leave applications.
|
12 November 2004 |
|
A preliminary objection cannot dispose of allegations of breach of a stay where facts and judicial discretion must be ascertained.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection/demurrer – cannot succeed where facts must be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised; Civil contempt/committal – alleged breach of stay of execution by payment of decretal sum; Parties sued by office or title – identifiable officers may be proper parties and entitled to be heard.
|
12 November 2004 |
|
Non‑service of required copies does not mean the Court was improperly moved; balance of convenience justified a stay.
* Civil procedure – Reference and stay of execution – relevance of balance of convenience when granting stays pending appeal.
* Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 51(2), Rule 52(1), Rule 57(1)) – service of extra copies and effect of non‑compliance on validity of moving the Court.
* Practice note – service requirements breach does not render reference improperly moved.
* Precedent – balance of convenience applied in stay applications (see Stanbic Bank v. Woods).
|
12 November 2004 |
|
Defilement conviction upheld; DPP consent unnecessary and improperly admitted complainant’s statement was harmless.
* Criminal law – Defilement (section 136(1) Penal Code) – DPP consent not required where charge is defilement of a girl under 14, even if facts involve a step-child. * Evidence – Admissibility of absent complainant’s statement – statement improperly admitted under section 34 Evidence Act. * Sufficiency of evidence – conviction upheld on the basis of appellant’s cautioned statement, eyewitness identification, and medical evidence.
|
5 November 2004 |
|
Trial court erred by not ordering psychiatric examination when the appellant's conduct and assessors' inquiries raised doubt about sanity.
Criminal law – Insanity – statutory duty to raise insanity at plea (s219 Criminal Procedure Act) – court’s duty to order medical examination if insanity appears during trial (s220) – insanity may be inferred from conduct and circumstances – assessors’ queries may signal need for psychiatric inquiry.
|
5 November 2004 |
|
Doctrine of recent possession and statutory minimum sentence upheld where appellants had constructive possession and failed to give alibi notice.
Criminal law – robbery – doctrine of recent possession – constructive possession where accused left stolen property with third party for repairs; Criminal procedure – alibi – requirement to give notice and particulars under s.194(4)&(5) – failure justifies discounting alibi; Sentencing – enhancement to statutory minimum under Minimum Sentences Act upheld.
|
5 November 2004 |
|
Reported
Limitation of Time - Court Vacation - Application filed 3 days beyond the limitation period but during a time when the court is on vacation - Whether the application is time barred. |
4 November 2004 |
|
|
4 November 2004 |
|
Excluding Court of Appeal Christmas vacation from time computation rendered the application timeous; reference allowed and matter remitted.
Court of Appeal — computation of time — court vacations — Government Notice No. 114 of 2.11.1979 — Christmas vacation (15 December–31 January) to be excluded when computing time for instituting applications to Court of Appeal; single judge decision per incuriam; reference allowed and matter remitted for determination on merits.
|
4 November 2004 |
|
The applicant's identification at night was held reliable and contradictions were insufficient to overturn conviction and sentence.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence at night – Waziri Amani guidelines – prior acquaintance, lighting and duration of observation. * Evidence – Credibility and contradictions – minor inconsistencies not necessarily fatal where other evidence is strong. * Sentencing – Mandatory minimum sentence under the Minimum Sentences Act.
|
4 November 2004 |
|
A notice of appeal filed without required leave is incompetent and struck out; costs not awarded when not pleaded.
• Appellate jurisdiction – Requirement of leave to appeal under Section 5(1)(c) AJA – incompetence of notice of appeal filed without leave or extension. • Civil procedure – Rule 82 Court Rules 1979 – striking out notices of appeal. • Costs – general rule that costs follow the event; award of costs presupposes a prayer in the pleadings. • Pleadings – parties are bound by their pleadings; unpleaded relief cannot be granted.
|
3 November 2004 |
|
Court granted stay pending appeal due to ambiguity and vicarious liability issues; no security was ordered.
Civil procedure – stay of execution pending appeal (Rule 9(2)(b)); ambiguity in judgment and decree; vicarious liability for acts committed off duty; security for stay; corporate/ parastatal capacity to satisfy decree.
|
3 November 2004 |
| October 2004 |
|
|
Conviction based on weak, unparticularised identification cannot stand; appeal allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Standards for identification at the scene; corroboration – Weak, unparticularised identification cannot support conviction; Minimum Sentences Act – sentence illegality (twenty years vs statutory minima).
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Insufficient and vague identification evidence undermined the robbery conviction; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Adequacy of identification by facial appearance – Need for particulars (prior acquaintance, clothing, lighting) – Corroboration of complainant – Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act amendments and illegality of a 20‑year term in circumstances noted.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
A Rule 83(1) certificate falsely certifying formal supply of the record may be rebutted and struck out; strict compliance required.
* Court of Appeal Rules r.83(1) — certificate of delay — requirement of formal supply of record before exclusion of time. * Evidence Act s.122 — presumption of regularity of official acts is rebuttable. * Informal or clandestine obtaining of court documents (without fees/formal delivery) unacceptable. * Strict compliance with procedural rules for computation of appeal time required.
|
27 October 2004 |