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

8 judgments

Advanced search

Court registries

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

8 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
August 2011
East African Development Bank vs Blueline Enterprises Tanzania Limited (Civil Application No. 47 of 2010) [2011] TZCA 507 (25 August 2011) Whether the applicant was denied a hearing or a manifest error justified review of the Court of Appeal judgment. Review — stringent test; manifest error on face of record; miscarriage of justice (Chandrakant; Rule 66). Natural justice — opportunity to be heard; denial of hearing not established Procedure — reliance by Court on authorities not cited by parties permissible; parties ideally should be allowed to address such authorities. Res judicata and limitation — disputed interpretations are appeal issues, not review grounds. Notice of appeal — deemed withdrawal requires Court order; notice remains extant until ordered otherwise	25 August 2011
Tan Gas Distributors Limited vs Mohamed Salim Said and Others (Civil Application for Revision No. 68 of 2011) [2011] TZCA 563 (25 August 2011) Failure to join a necessary party with proprietary interest vitiated judgment on admission and required quashing and rehearing. Civil procedure — Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC — Necessary parties — Court’s power to add parties against plaintiff’s will where orders would affect proprietary rights — Failure to join necessary party and enter judgment constitutes material irregularity — Judgment on admission set aside.	25 August 2011
Tang Gas Distributors Limited vs Mohamed Salim Said and 2 Others (Civil Application for Revision No 68 of 2011) [2011] TZCA 583 (25 August 2011) Failure to join the applicant as a necessary party before entering judgment on admission rendered the High Court proceedings null and void. Civil procedure — necessary party — Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC — court’s power and duty to add parties suo motu Natural justice — right to be heard — omission to join/hear affected party vitiates proceedings Judgment on admission — may be null where necessary party excluded Revisional jurisdiction — quashing of proceedings and remedial orders (return of title, addition of parties, remittal)	25 August 2011
Julius s/o Mgawo vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2014) [2011] TZCA 205 (19 August 2011) A notice of appeal with inconsistent dates and incorrect description of the order is defective and renders the appeal incompetent. Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal – Mandatory contents under Rule 68(2) – must state correct date of judgment, name of judge, case number, and brief nature of order appealed against. Defective notice – two inconsistent dates and incorrect description of the order – renders appeal incompetent Remedy – appeal struck out; leave to re-institute subject to limitation rules	19 August 2011
Mark Alexander Gaetje and Others vs Brigitte Gaetje Defloor (Civil Revision No. 33 of 2011) [2011] TZCA 566 (15 August 2011) Granting letters of administration instead of probate is a substantive error, not a clerical slip, and must be remedied by proper probate proceedings. Probate law — distinction between probate and letters of administration — effect and procedure under the Probate and Administration of Estates Act; Civil procedure — section 96 Civil Procedure Code does not cure substantive mistake of granting administration in place of probate; Appellate jurisdiction — Court’s revisional power to quash substantive mis-grant and remit for proper probate processing.	15 August 2011
Juma Mashaka & Another vs Attorney General (Civil Application No. 141 of 2010) [2011] TZCA 506 (12 August 2011) Failure to file mandatory written submissions under Rule 106(1) warrants dismissal; Rule 106(13) cannot cure prior non‑compliance. Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 106(1) mandatory filing of written submissions; Rule 106(13) enlargement of time; Rule 106(19) exceptional waiver in interests of justice; non‑compliance and preliminary objection; dismissal with costs.	12 August 2011
Daud Norbert vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 242 of 2009) [2011] TZCA 43 (10 August 2011) Sentence unlawful where no conviction recorded and defective charge plus unreliable identification caused failure of justice. Criminal procedure — requirement to record conviction before sentencing (s.235 CPA); defective charge — wrong statutory provision for armed robbery; material discrepancies in particulars of offence (date and complainant's presence); visual identification — Waziri Amani factors and risk of mistaken identity; s.388 CPA inapplicable where defects occasion failure of justice.	10 August 2011
Mussa Mustapha Kusa and Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2010) [2011] TZCA 356 (5 August 2011) Unreliable visual identification and statutory defects in a confessional statement led to quashing of convictions and sentences. Criminal law – Visual identification evidence – reliability and need for watertight conditions; failure to name a known suspect at earliest opportunity renders identification suspect. Criminal procedure – Cautioned/confessional statements – mandatory compliance with ss.50, 51, 57 Criminal Procedure Act; non-compliance renders statements inadmissible. Criminal procedure – Conviction must be entered before sentence; sentencing without conviction invalid Appeal – Interference with concurrent findings justified where findings are perverse or based on misapprehension of evidence	5 August 2011