|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2011 |
|
|
A treaty-established bank's charter-based immunity covers bank balances; garnishee/order against the appellant was wrongly made.
International organisations – treaty/charter-based immunity – Articles 44 & 45 (as incorporated domestically) – scope of "assets" includes bank balances – restrictive state-immunity doctrine not applicable to IOs – execution/garnishee proceedings incompatible with treaty immunity.
|
28 December 2011 |
|
Appeal struck out because the notice of appeal cited a non‑existent High Court appeal number.
Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal must correctly identify the High Court decision complained of – Rule 61(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 – Defective notice citing non‑existent appeal number is fatal – Appeal struck out.
|
25 December 2011 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal where impugned High Court order appeared problematic and possibly illegal.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution under Rule 9(2)(b) – Appeal pending – Illegality and breach of natural justice (audi alteram partem) as good cause – Execution of problematic decrees to be stayed pending appellate determination.
|
23 December 2011 |
|
An international bank enjoyed absolute immunity from legal process and bank balances were immune from attachment.
International organisations — immunity from legal process under constitutive charter; scope of "assets" — includes bank monies and is immune from execution; distinguish immunity of international organisations from state sovereign immunity; res judicata and change of law (Amending Act 2005) — prior rulings do not bar newly conferred immunities.
|
22 December 2011 |
|
A certificate must present genuine points of law; factual disputes cannot be certified for determination on a fourth appeal.
* Appellate procedure – Certification under section 5(2)(c) – certificate must raise true points of law of legal significance.
* Appealability – Fourth appeal – Court of Appeal cannot re-evaluate factual evidence; factual disputes unsuitable for certification.
* Pleadings – Parties are bound by pleadings; unpleaded issues (e.g. time bar) not for determination without factual inquiry.
* Evidence – Documents not annexed and unproduced records cannot form proper basis for decision without being in evidence.
* Witness competence – Testimony of purported government officers requires proof of authority and the records relied upon.
|
19 December 2011 |
|
Second appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence for defilement upheld based on corroboration and medical opinion.
* Criminal law – defilement – corroboration of complainant’s evidence – investigator’s recovery of underpants with blood/semen and witnesses’ observations provide corroboration. * Medical evidence – expert’s role is to give opinion on findings (bruising, signs of forced entry), not a conclusive statement of penetration. * Appeals – second appeal limited in disturbing concurrent findings of fact; grounds not raised on first appeal ordinarily not entertained on second appeal. * Reliability – naming suspect at earliest opportunity as assurance of witness reliability (Marwa principle).
|
15 December 2011 |
|
Procedural defects in delay and accuracy certificates and party names are curable and do not render the appellant's appeal incompetent.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – competence of appeal – validity and computation of certificate of delay; remedial power under Rule 130 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009; certificate of accuracy – procedural deficiency; misnaming of parties – amendment to prevent injustice.
|
14 December 2011 |
|
Matrimonial houses acquired by joint effort must be equitably divided; unexplained apportionment by trial court overturned.
* Family law – Matrimonial assets – Division of property acquired during marriage/cohabitation – Joint efforts doctrine applied to houses built during union; equal shares where both parties contributed. * Procedural law – Requirement for trial court to give reasons when dividing matrimonial assets and to consider value/condition of assets. * Appeal – Appellate correction of unexplained or unreasoned asset apportionment.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and reliable voice identification upheld murder conviction; constitutional delay complaint not considered by the Court.
Criminal law – murder – circumstantial evidence – standard that facts be incompatible with innocence; voice identification – admissibility where witness familiarity shown; appellate jurisdiction – limits on entertaining constitutional complaints not raised at trial and Article 99 restrictions regarding Zanzibar Constitution.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Court held time‑barred employment suits deprived the High Court of jurisdiction; recommendation letter did not restart limitation.
Civil procedure – jurisdiction – time-bar (limitation) – plaint averments determine forum; Limitation Decree s.19(1) (acknowledgement in writing) – recommendation by committee not an acknowledgement; administrative pursuit does not toll limitation; court must dismiss time‑barred suits for want of jurisdiction (s.3(1)).
|
12 December 2011 |
|
A court lacks jurisdiction to hear time-barred employment suits unless a timely written acknowledgment restarts limitation.
* Civil procedure – Limitation – jurisdiction – court lacks jurisdiction to entertain time-barred suits under the Limitation Decree (item 102).
* Limitation Decree s.19(1) – requirement of a written, signed acknowledgment of liability by the party against whom the right is claimed and made before expiry of the limitation period.
* Administrative remedies – pursuing administrative channels does not toll or extend statutory limitation absent valid acknowledgment.
* Jurisdiction – courts must raise want of jurisdiction for time-barred claims and may dismiss sua sponte under s.3(1).
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and reliable voice identification upheld murder conviction; Court declined to hear unraised Zanzibar constitutional complaint.
Criminal law – murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence; voice identification by familiar neighbours; limits on Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear Zanzibar constitutional complaints not raised at trial; insufficiency of intoxication/fall hypothesis where injuries and postmortem indicate traumatic haematoma.
|
7 December 2011 |
|
Failing to decide a reserved preliminary objection (notably on jurisdiction) renders subsequent trial proceedings a nullity.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection must be decided before trial on merits – Jurisdictional objections require determination first – Failure to rule on reserved preliminary objection renders subsequent proceedings a nullity – Necessary party must file pleadings before participating; improper participation and later summons as court witness irregular.
|
7 December 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove assault caused a spontaneous internal rupture and admissible evidence was lacking.
* Criminal law – murder – causation – medical evidence showing "spontaneous rupture" of an organ does not, without more, establish causation by external assault. * Evidence – dying declaration – admissibility – compliance with section 34B(2)(d) of the Evidence Act required. * Criminal Procedure – calling witnesses – non-compliance with section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Act mandates exclusion of evidence. * Burden of proof – prosecution must exclude natural causes; where medical evidence permits natural death, conviction for murder unsustainable absent exceptional circumstances.
|
3 December 2011 |
|
Failure to decide a reserved preliminary objection, especially on jurisdiction, renders subsequent trial proceedings null and void.
Procedure — Preliminary objection — Reserved ruling must be delivered before trial proceeds; jurisdictional objections to be determined first — Failure to rule renders subsequent proceedings a nullity. Pleadings — Necessary party (Registrar of Documents) participating without written statement of defence and later summoned as court witness — procedural irregularity. Appellate jurisdiction — Exercise of revisional power to quash proceedings and remit preliminary objection for fresh hearing.
|
2 December 2011 |
| November 2011 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: unsafe night identification, improperly invoked recent possession, and inadmissible cautioned statements led to quashing convictions.
Criminal law – Visual identification at night – necessity to prove source/intensity of light, distance and duration of observation; Recent possession – requirements to prove recovery, positive identification and recent theft; Admissibility of cautioned statements – compliance with statutory time limits and procedural safeguards (sections 50, 51, 57(4), section 169 consequences).
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Convictions quashed: unreliable night identification, incorrect use of recent-possession and inadmissible cautioned statements.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – visual identification – need for detailed description of lighting, distance and duration of observation for reliable ID (Waziri Amani factors). * Criminal law – recent possession – elements: possession, positive identification of property, recent theft from complainant, subject-matter of charge. * Evidence – cautioned/confessional statements – compliance with sections 50, 51 and 57 mandatory; non-compliance renders statements inadmissible and expungeable. * Appeal – convictions unsafe where identification, possession and confession evidence are defective.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
The applicant's conviction quashed where victim identification was unsafe and co-accused's confession lacked corroboration.
Criminal law — Identification evidence — reliability where victims were ordered to lie face down and no identification parade conducted; Confession of co-accused — conviction cannot be based solely on co-accused's confession; Corroboration — necessity under s.33(2) Law of Evidence Act.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where primary identification and child evidence were unreliable or admitted unlawfully.
Criminal law – identification evidence at night – reliability of visual ID; Credibility – contradictions between police statement and trial testimony; Evidence Act s.127(2) – voire dire for child witnesses mandatory; Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) – rights concerning PF3; Offence elements – armed robbery (offensive weapon) and gang rape (multiple perpetrators and proof of penetration); Safeguard against wrongful conviction where primary evidence is discredited.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Identification was unreliable, recovered items unlinked and co-accused confessions uncorroborated, so conviction was quashed.
Criminal law – Identification of accused: reliability under poor lighting/terror and requirement to name suspects early; Recent possession doctrine – recovered items must be linked to charged property; Co-accused statements/confessions – require independent corroboration (s.33(2) Law of Evidence); Prosecution burden – State may decline to support unsafe convictions.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Sole eye-witness identification at close range by lamp-light was held reliable; conviction and death sentence affirmed.
* Criminal law – Murder – Identification by single eye-witness – adequacy of light (wick lamp), proximity, and prior familiarity as factors supporting reliable identification.
* Credibility – discrepancies between police statement and testimony – minor inconsistencies not necessarily fatal to credibility if core account stands and witness is reliable.
* Appeal – appellate review of trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility and identification.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Appellants' convictions quashed due to unsafe visual identification, improperly conducted identification parade and a worthless confession.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual recognition and familiarity; inadequate lighting and inconsistent witness accounts render identification unsafe. Police procedure – Identification parade – Rule 2(b), Police General Order No.231; parades must not be conducted by officers below Sub-Inspector. Criminal procedure – Confession – Vague or disassociative statements lack evidential value. Conviction unsafe where key identification and confession evidence fail.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Child’s unsworn evidence expunged for non-compliance with s127(2), but conviction upheld on other cogent evidence.
Evidence Act s127(2) – competency and voir dire for child witnesses; unsworn evidence; requirement to record findings on intelligence and duty to tell the truth – expunging improperly admitted child evidence; s178 Evidence Act – conviction sustainable on other cogent evidence; sexual offences – victim’s evidence and in flagrante delicto corroboration; credibility of related witnesses.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Improper admission of a child’s unsworn evidence requires expungement, but conviction may stand on other cogent in‑flagrante and corroborative testimony.
* Evidence Act s.127(2) — voir dire requirements for child witnesses; necessity to record findings on intelligence and duty to tell truth
* Incompetent evidence — unsworn child evidence improperly received must be expunged
* Evidence Act s.178 — conviction may be sustained on other cogent evidence despite improper admission of child evidence
* Sexual offences — in flagrante delicto and contemporaneous witness testimony can suffice to support conviction
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Convictions quashed where interpreter was not shown to be sworn, vitiating fair-trial requirements; immediate release ordered.
Criminal procedure – Plea of guilty – charge must be explained in a language the accused understands (s.228(2)) – Interpreter use and requirement to take judicial oath (Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act s.4(b)) – Failure to record sworn interpreter vitiates proceedings – Right to fair trial (Art.13(6)(a)) – Retrial discretionary.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Rape conviction quashed where child witnesses' evidence was admitted without complying with section 127(2) and penetration was not proved.
* Evidence Act s.127(2) – child witnesses – court must form and record opinions whether child understands nature of oath, is sufficiently intelligent and understands duty to speak truth – mandatory compliance required.
* Effect of non‑compliance – child’s evidence may be expunged and conviction may be vulnerable where that evidence is essential.
* Penal Code s.130(4)(a) – proof of rape requires penetration however slight; medical signs alone may be insufficient to prove penetration.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Rape conviction quashed where medical report was improperly admitted and penetration—the essential element—was not proved.
* Criminal procedure – admissibility of medical report (PF3) – duty to give accused opportunity to object and to explain right under s.240(3) CPA to call the medical officer – non-compliance leads to expungement. * Sexual offences – rape – prosecution must prove penetration (however slight) – bare assertion of 'rape' insufficient. * Evidence – identification and credibility of witnesses insufficient in absence of proof of essential elements.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
In‑camera omission curable; conviction quashed because prosecution evidence was inconsistent and inherently improbable.
Criminal law – Rape – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Credibility undermined by inconsistencies, hearsay and failure to tender recovered property; Criminal Procedure Act s.186(3) (in‑camera requirement) – the word "shall" not invariably mandatory; omissions curable under s.388 if no injustice; Evidence Act s.122 – inferences from natural course of events.
|
26 November 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where victim identification was unreliable and co-accused’s confession lacked independent corroboration.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – reliability where victims were ordered to lie face down after shooting – absence of identification parade; Evidence – cautioned statement of co-accused – section 33(2) Law of Evidence Act – need for independent corroboration before using co-accused’s confession to convict another; Conviction unsafe where identification and corroboration are lacking.
|
25 November 2011 |
|
Unreliable identification and uncorroborated accomplice admissions made the armed robbery conviction unsafe.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – visual ID under terrifying circumstances; need to name suspects at earliest opportunity; adequacy of lighting. * Evidence – Confessions/admissions by co-accused require independent corroboration (s.33(2), Law of Evidence). * Recent possession – recovered property must be linked to charged offence; distinguishing marks and inclusion in charge sheet material. * Conviction unsafe where identification and corroboration are lacking.
|
25 November 2011 |
|
An unequivocal guilty plea and corroborating facts and medical evidence supported conviction and life sentence for sexual offence against a child.
* Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Requirement that plea be unequivocal and that prosecution outlines facts – Accused’s own words to be recorded. * Sexual offences – Elements – Penetration and harm – Medical evidence and flagrante delicto as proof. * Criminal procedure – Effect of voluntary intoxication in mitigation where accused unequivocally admits facts.
|
25 November 2011 |
|
The appellant's criminal appeal was struck out for filing a notice of appeal citing the wrong High Court appeal number.
* Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Validity – A notice of appeal institutes a criminal appeal under rule 61(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 – Wrong citation of High Court appeal number renders notice defective and appeal incompetent.* Procedural irregularity – Appeals struck out where no properly instituted appeal exists.
|
25 November 2011 |
|
Unswn interpreter undermined fair-trial requirements; convictions quashed and appellants released, no retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – plea of guilty – requirement that charge and its ingredients be explained in a language the accused understands – interpreter must be sworn (Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act) – failure to show interpreter sworn vitiates trial – fair trial rights (Art.13(6)(a)).
|
25 November 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification was unreliable and an inadmissible cautioned statement was relied upon.
* Criminal law – robbery/armed robbery – charge must correspond to evidence and property relied on for recent possession must be the property charged; * Identification evidence – dangers of first‑time visual identification, need for prior description or identification parade, dock identification insufficient alone; * Evidence – cautioned/confessional statement – mandatory inquiry into voluntariness required before admission, compliance with Criminal Procedure Act (s.50(1)(a))
|
25 November 2011 |
|
A notice of appeal that misstates or omits required particulars is incurably defective and renders the appeal incompetent.
Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 61(1),(2),(7) – Mandatory requirements for notice of appeal – Notice must identify the specific decision, state nature of conviction and sentence, and follow prescribed form – Omnibus or misstated notice incurably defective – Appeal struck out as incompetent.
|
24 November 2011 |
|
A prisoner’s notice of appeal lodged late and without prison officer endorsement is incompetent and the appeal is struck out.
Criminal procedure – Appeals – Time for lodging notice of appeal – Rule 61(1) Court of Appeal Rules (1979) – Prisoners’ notices must be channelled via officer-in-charge with endorsement – signature date is not substitute for endorsement – late notice renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
24 November 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification, connection of recovered property, and admissibility of cautioned statement were defective.
* Criminal law – armed robbery v. robbery with violence – importance of correct charge and proof linking accused to named complainant.
* Identification – visual identification unreliable where no prior description or identification parade; dock identification insufficient.
* Recent possession – requires nexus between recovered property and the property specified in the charge.
* Confessions – cautioned statements inadmissible without a voluntariness inquiry; compliance with s.50(1)(a) CPC required.
|
24 November 2011 |
|
Appeal dismissed: despite discrediting some witnesses, remaining evidence proved careless driving and conviction is upheld.
Road traffic offences – careless driving – sufficiency of evidence where some prosecution witnesses are discredited; role of sketch map and witness testimony; speed evidence not decisive; prior nullified proceedings and effect on fresh trial.
|
23 November 2011 |
|
Appeal dismissed; rape proven by victim and contemporaneous eyewitnesses, PF3 expunged for s.240(3) non‑compliance.
* Criminal law – Rape – elements: penetration and absence of consent; victim's direct evidence. * Identification – caught in flagrante delicto; contemporaneous eyewitness identification under bright moonlight. * Evidence – PF3 (medical form) expunged for non‑compliance with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act. * Appeal – concurrent findings of trial and High Court not lightly disturbed; afterthoughts and failure to cross‑examine undermine new assertions.
|
23 November 2011 |
|
Nighttime visual identification was insufficiently established; familiarity alone cannot validate unreliable identification.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night – need to state source and intensity of light, distance, room size and duration – familiarity insufficient where conditions not conducive – unsafe conviction warranting quash of conviction.
|
23 November 2011 |
|
An appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out if the notice of appeal fails to correctly identify the High Court decision being challenged.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal – Mandatory requirements of rule 61(1) and format under rule 61(7) – notice must correctly state the High Court decision number. * Competence of appeal – Defective notice of appeal renders appeal incompetent; subsequent memorandum cannot cure defect. * Preliminary objection – Point of law may be raised at any stage.
|
23 November 2011 |
|
A defective notice of appeal citing a non-existent High Court appeal number vitiates the appeal and warrants striking out.
Court of Appeal procedure – Notice of appeal – Requirement under rule 61(1) – Necessity of correctly identifying the High Court decision – Defective notice citing non-existent appeal number – Appeal struck out.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
Failure to hear appellant on appeal under s.366 CPA renders High Court decision null; rehearing ordered.
* Criminal appeal – right to be heard – audi alteram partem – appellate court must afford appellant opportunity to address court – section 366(1) Criminal Procedure Act – failure to hear appellant renders decision a nullity and warrants rehearing.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
Retrial ordered after medical evidence was expunged for s.240(3) non‑compliance, leaving rape unproven on the record.
* Criminal law – Rape of infant – need to prove penetration; medical evidence (PF3) material to proof.
* Criminal procedure – Section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – mandatory duty to inform accused of right to require report-maker to be summoned; non-compliance may lead to expunging report.
* Evidence – Uncorroborated testimony of interested witness insufficient where essential elements (penetration) are not otherwise established.
* Remedy – Retrial ordered where procedural omission occasioned failure of justice and removal of crucial evidence.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where penetration was not proved and medical report was improperly admitted under section 240(3).
* Criminal law – Rape – Proof of offence – Penetration (however slight) required to prove sexual intercourse under section 130(4)(a).
* Evidence – PF3/medical report – section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – trial court must inform accused of right to have author summoned; non‑compliance renders PF3 unacted upon/expunged.
* Evidence – Hearsay and inadmissible admissions – statements to relatives and to militiamen are of little or no probative value.
* Appeal – Insufficiency of prosecution evidence – conviction quashed where essential elements not proved and key exhibits improperly admitted.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
Improperly admitted confessions and unsafe visual identifications led to quashing most appellants' convictions; guilty pleas to the first count upheld.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – sufficiency of evidence; visual identification and identification parade – contradictions and independence of identification. * Criminal procedure – cautioned statements – requirement of voluntariness inquiry before admission; improperly received confessions and effect. * Evidence Act, s.178 – improper admission not automatically fatal; convictions must be supportable by independent evidence. * Recent possession doctrine – conditions for linking recovered property to accused. * Right to fair trial – opportunity to cross-examine and proper admission of exhibits.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
Omission of the High Court case number from a notice of appeal is a fatal defect rendering the appeal incompetent.
Court of Appeal Rules – Notice of appeal – mandatory particulars (High Court centre, judge, date, case number) – omission of case number renders notice defective and appeal incompetent; Fatal irregularity – appeal struck out; Remedy – appellant may seek extension of time to file proper notice of appeal.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
The applicant's civil application was marked withdrawn by the Court following a written notice under Rule 58(1).
* Civil procedure – Withdrawal of application – Effect of written Notice of withdrawal lodged by counsel – Application marked withdrawn under Rule 58(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
|
21 November 2011 |
|
A joint notice of appeal must be duly signed by all appellants; failure renders the appeal incompetent and struck out.
Court of Appeal Rules (1979) — Rule 61 — Notice of appeal — Joint notice of appeal — Signature requirement — Procedural compliance — Defective instituting document — Incompetence of appeal — Appeal struck out.
|
19 November 2011 |
|
Night‑time identification without particulars of light, distance or conditions is unsafe; conviction quashed.
Criminal law – Visual identification at night – necessity to prove source and intensity of light, distance, room size and duration; familiarity of witness not decisive unless conditions conducive; conviction unsafe where possibility of mistaken identity not excluded.
|
19 November 2011 |