|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2012 |
|
|
Failure by the appellant to include mandatory recorded proceedings rendered the appeal incompetent and it was struck out.
Appeal — Record of appeal — Mandatory inclusion of pleadings and recorded proceedings under Rule 96(1)(c) and (d); omission of recorded proceedings fatal to competence; transcripts of judge’s notes not a substitute; Rule 96(3) exclusion requires leave; Rule 96(6) allows remedial inclusion within 14 days.
|
19 December 2012 |
|
Miscitation of provisions did not invalidate judicial review leave; defective representative Notice of Appeal must be amended.
Judicial review — leave requirement — Crown Office Rules 1906 — Judicature and Application of Laws Act s2(3) — Law Reform Act procedure — wrong citation not fatal; Court of Appeal procedure — representative Notice of Appeal defective — curable under Rule 111, Court of Appeal Rules 2009.
|
17 December 2012 |
|
Medical proof of rape existed but procedural irregularities and unreliable testimony defeated conviction against the appellant.
* Criminal law – Rape – Medical evidence confirming sexual assault is not necessarily sufficient to convict a particular accused absent reliable linking evidence. * Evidence – Single witness/corroboration – Uncorroborated testimony may suffice in fit cases but must be credible; procedural irregularities can undermine reliability. * Procedure – Legality of searches/arrests – Midnight raid without warrant or community officials may taint prosecution case. * Burden of proof – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
17 December 2012 |
|
Reported
An administration petition properly presented imposes a statutory moratorium freezing winding-up proceedings unless leave is granted.
Companies law – administration orders vs winding up – distinction between rescue and liquidation regimes; moratorium under administration (s.249(1)(a),(c)) – effect of administration petition on pending winding-up proceedings; savings clause (s.486) – preserves winding-up provisions only and does not bar application of administration provisions to companies wound up before Act; procedural irregularity – continuation of proceedings and winding-up order after administration petition – nullity.
|
17 December 2012 |
|
The applicant's appeal lacked required leave, was struck out, and respondents awarded costs.
Appellate procedure — leave to appeal required for certain High Court orders — incompetence and striking out of appeal and notice of appeal — extension of time must first be sought in High Court — costs awarded for abortive appeal.
|
15 December 2012 |
|
An appeal without required leave is incompetent and must be struck out; extension of time must first be sought in the High Court.
* Civil procedure – Appealability – Leave required under section 11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 47 – Appeal incompetent without leave.
* Civil procedure – Incompetent appeal – striking out appeal and accompanying notice of appeal.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time to file notice of appeal – must be sought first in High Court; Court of Appeal may entertain only after High Court refusal.
* Costs – award where appellant delayed and resisted a meritorious preliminary objection.
|
14 December 2012 |
|
Court exercised Rule 106(19) discretion to waive time limits and permit late written submissions in the interests of justice.
Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — Rule 106(1), (9) and (19) — timeliness of written submissions — Court's discretion to waive or reduce time limits in exceptional circumstances — interest of justice.
|
14 December 2012 |
|
Court exercised Rule 106(19) discretion to waive time limits, allowing late written submissions and overruling preliminary objection.
* Civil procedure – compliance with Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 106(1) and (9) – consequences of failing to file written submissions in time.
* Civil procedure – residual discretion – Rule 106(19) permits waiver or reduction of time limits where circumstances are exceptional or hearing must be accelerated in the interest of justice.
* Appeal procedure – preliminary objection on time bar – Court may overrule objection and grant extension where exceptional circumstances exist.
|
14 December 2012 |
|
Court exercised Rule 106(19) discretion to waive time limits and allowed late submissions in interest of justice.
Civil Procedure – Court of Appeal Rules 2009, Rule 106(1),(9) and (19) – compliance with filing timelines – discretion to waive time limits for exceptional circumstances and interest of justice; validity of administrative extensions by Deputy Registrar; preliminary objection to time‑barred submissions.
|
14 December 2012 |
|
Failure to serve the respondent personally with the memorandum and record of appeal under Rule 97(1) rendered the appeal incompetent and it was struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure – service of appeal documents – mandatory requirement under Rule 97(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – failure to serve respondent personally renders appeal incompetent.
* Civil procedure – notice of address for service (Rule 86) does not substitute for personal service required by Rule 97(1).
* Procedural default – invocation of Rule 2 to cure non-compliance with mandatory rules not appropriate where essential steps omitted.
* Remedy – striking out of appeal and costs for failure to comply with mandatory appellate procedure.
|
13 December 2012 |
|
A defective or belated certificate of delay renders the applicant's appeal time-barred and subject to striking out with costs.
* Civil procedure – Appeals – Rule 83(1) certificate of delay – must correctly identify the cause and be issued timely to exclude preparation time from the sixty-day appeal period.
* Procedural compliance – defective or improperly dated certificates may be expunged and will render appeals time-barred.
* Costs – where appellant concedes procedural incompetence and gives no reason against costs, costs will be awarded to respondent.
|
13 December 2012 |
|
Failure to serve respondent with memorandum and record as required by Rule 97(1) renders appeal incompetent and it was struck out.
Court of Appeal procedure — Rule 97(1) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — mandatory requirement to serve respondent with memorandum and record of appeal — failure to serve respondent personally renders appeal incompetent — appeal struck out with costs.
|
12 December 2012 |
|
Circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; convictions quashed and appellants released.
Criminal law – Murder; reliance on circumstantial evidence – requirement that incriminatory circumstances be cogent and form an unbroken chain excluding other reasonable hypotheses – unnecessary identification parade where witnesses knew accused – failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – quash convictions and order release.
|
12 December 2012 |
|
Refusal to recuse plus failure to identify stolen property led to quashing of armed robbery conviction.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Requirement to prove taking of property by violence or threat and possession/identification of stolen property – failure to tender stolen phone and to identify sim card undermines conviction. * Evidence – Identification of property – failure to verify sim card or give mobile number. * Criminal procedure – Accused silence – adverse inference not available where prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. * Judicial impartiality – Recusal/recusal requests – refusal to withdraw where reasonable apprehension of bias exists results in miscarriage of justice.
|
12 December 2012 |
|
Incorrect statutory citation did not vitiate judicial review where no statutory leave requirement exists; Notice of Appeal must be amended to name all appellants.
* Judicial review – procedural requirements – whether prior leave is statutorily required in Tanzania – Crown Office Rules 1906 applicable by s.2(3) JALA when no rules made under s.18(1) Law Reform Act.* Citation of wrong provisions – generally may render application incompetent, but where no statutory leave requirement exists objection is misconceived.* Civil procedure – Appeals – Notice of Appeal – proper identification of appellants – amendment under Rule 111 Court of Appeal Rules 2009.
|
12 December 2012 |
|
A defective certificate of delay rendered the applicant's appeal time-barred and it was struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure – Rule 83(1) certificate of delay – competency and strict compliance – certificate referring to wrong cause number and dated after record filed is defective and must be expunged; without a valid certificate appeal is time-barred. * Procedural law – expungement of defective documents – effect on appeal competence. * Costs – appeal struck out with costs where preliminary objection upheld.
|
12 December 2012 |
|
Trial judge’s suo motu order splitting plaintiffs without hearing them breached natural justice; appellate court quashed it.
Civil procedure – Misjoinder of plaintiffs – Court may raise misjoinder suo motu but must hear parties before making adverse orders; breach of audi alteram partem vitiates decision – Order 1 r.2 Civil Procedure Decree – Remedy: revision and quashing of portion of ruling; reinstatement of suit.
|
11 December 2012 |
|
The applicant’s challenge to an eight-year manslaughter sentence fails; sentence not manifestly excessive.
* Criminal law – sentencing – manslaughter – reduction from statutory life term to fixed term for mitigating factors; appellate intervention only where sentence is manifestly excessive, inadequate, based on wrong principle, overlooks material factor, or is illegal.
|
11 December 2012 |
|
An eight-year manslaughter sentence was upheld because the trial judge properly considered mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Mitigating factors – Appellate interference limited to manifestly excessive/inadequate sentence, wrong principle, overlooked material factor or illegality.
|
11 December 2012 |
|
Appeal allowed because unsafe night-time single-witness identification and unaddressed inconsistencies vitiated the conviction.
Criminal law – Visual identification – single-witness night identification; Waziri Amani criteria – necessity of careful analysis of surrounding circumstances; PF3 admissibility – requirement under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act to call medical officer; Effect of materially inconsistent prior statements on witness credibility; Prosecution’s duty to explain contradictions.
|
11 December 2012 |
|
Single night-time identification by an impeached witness was unsafe; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Single witness night-time identification under traumatic surprise – Waziri Amani guidelines on factors to be considered.
* Evidence – Improper admission of PF3 in breach of section 240(3) – PF3 expunged.
* Evidence – Prior inconsistent police statements affecting witness credibility – prosecution’s failure to explain contradictions.
* Criminal procedure – Conviction unsafe where identification and credibility unresolved – conviction quashed.
|
11 December 2012 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification of stolen phones and recovery of cash were insufficient, rendering the verdict unsafe.
Armed robbery – identification of stolen property – insufficient description of distinctive marks on mobile phones – recent possession doctrine inapplicable; unexplained non-recovery of alleged cash – appellate intervention where conviction unsafe; evidence standard: identification beyond reasonable doubt required.
|
10 December 2012 |
|
High Court wrongly summarily dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal under the wrong statute; matter remitted for full hearing.
Criminal procedure – Summary rejection of appeal – Correct statutory basis is section 364(1) Criminal Procedure Act – Summary dismissal an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly – appellate court must peruse record and indicate so – improper to rely on section 28(1) Magistrates' Courts Act for subordinate court appeals – severe sentence (life imprisonment) requires full hearing.
|
10 December 2012 |
|
High Court wrongly summarily dismissed criminal appeal under incorrect statute; appeal quashed and remitted for hearing on merits.
Criminal appeal – summary dismissal – Wrong reliance on s.28(1) Magistrates' Courts Act – Correct provision s.364(1) Criminal Procedure Act – Principles from Iddi Kondo: summary dismissal is exceptional, requires perusal of record and careful exercise – severe sentence (life imprisonment) militates against summary rejection – appeal remitted for hearing on merits.
|
10 December 2012 |
|
Daylight identification by a known complainant and the appellant's flight sustained conviction despite a charge‑sheet omission.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – identification in daylight by a known complainant and naming at earliest opportunity – reliability of ID.
* Criminal procedure – Charge particulars – variance/omission (CD) in charge sheet – amend under s.234(1) CPA; non-fatal where overall evidence sufficient.
* Circumstantial evidence – flight as indication of guilty conscience.
|
7 December 2012 |
|
A judge may raise misjoinder suo motu but must hear parties before deciding; failure to do so breaches natural justice.
Civil procedure – Joinder of parties – Misjoinder of plaintiffs raised suo motu – Duty to afford parties hearing before deciding an issue that adversely affects them – Breach of natural justice vitiates decision.
|
7 December 2012 |
|
Rape conviction quashed for inadmissible medical report and prosecutorial failure to call a key witness.
Criminal law — Rape — Consent must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; Evidence — PF3 inadmissible without s.240(3) compliance; Prosecution duty — failure to call material witness attracts adverse inference.
|
7 December 2012 |
|
Failure to comply with s.240(3) CPA and omission to call a material witness warranted quashing the rape conviction.
* Criminal law – Rape – consent as essential ingredient – prosecution must prove lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal procedure – Admissibility of medical reports – non-compliance with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act renders PF3 of no evidentiary value.
* Criminal procedure – Prosecution duty – failure to call material witnesses may attract adverse inference.
* Evidence – unexplained delay in arrest may undermine prosecution’s case.
|
7 December 2012 |
|
Killing during a quarrel lacked malice aforethought; murder conviction substituted with manslaughter.
Criminal law – murder v. manslaughter – malice aforethought – provocation and fights negating malice – appellate substitution of conviction and sentence.
|
6 December 2012 |
|
|
6 December 2012 |
|
Circumstantial evidence that fails to form a cogent chain cannot sustain murder convictions; identification parades add no value when accused are known.
* Criminal law – identification parade – unnecessary and of no evidential value where accused were known to prosecution witnesses. * Criminal law – circumstantial evidence – must be cogent, form an unbroken chain and exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence. * Burden of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reasonable doubt requires benefit to accused.
|
6 December 2012 |
|
Inadequate judicial summing up to assessors on key issues rendered the trial a nullity and ordered a retrial.
* Criminal procedure – Assessors – Mandatory trial with assessors – Duty of judge to sum up fully and record assessors’ opinions (s.262, s.279 CPA).
* Evidence – Reliance on single child witness – credibility and identification (visual and voice) issues.
* Criminal law – Ingredients of murder and effect of inadequate direction on assessors – miscarriage of justice and retrial.
|
6 December 2012 |
|
Conviction quashed where recent possession and ownership were not satisfactorily proved; sentence also illegal.
Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Doctrine of recent possession – requirement to prove ownership, recent theft and linkage to accused – Identification of stolen property – admissibility and sufficiency of receipts and witness evidence – Appellate interference with concurrent findings – Illegal sentence under s.170(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act.
|
6 December 2012 |
|
A Deputy Registrar acted ultra vires in granting extension of time; only the Court may grant such extensions under Rule 10.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – power to extend time – Rule 10 vests extension power in the Court (single Justice) and not in Registrar/Deputy Registrar.
* Administrative action – Deputy Registrars administrative letter granting extension was ultra vires where no formal application was made to the Court.
* Rule interpretation – Rule 13(7)(g) does not empower a Deputy Registrar to usurp judicial functions reserved to the Court.
|
6 December 2012 |
|
Killing in a quarrel/fight negates malice aforethought and warrants reduction of murder conviction to manslaughter.
Criminal law – Murder v manslaughter – Malice aforethought – Provocation/fight – Standard of proof – Eyewitness limitations (child witness).
|
5 December 2012 |
|
Non‑compliance with statutory interview time limits vitiates a cautioned statement; without it circumstantial evidence failed to sustain conviction.
Criminal procedure – admissibility of cautioned statement – statutory interview period under sections 50 and 51 Criminal Procedure Act – non‑compliance vitiates confession; circumstantial evidence – sufficiency to sustain conviction; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
|
5 December 2012 |
|
|
4 December 2012 |
|
|
4 December 2012 |
| November 2012 |
|
|
Convictions quashed where circumstantial evidence failed to exclude other reasonable hypotheses and identification parade was unnecessary.
* Criminal law — Identification parade: unnecessary and without evidential weight where accused are known to witnesses.
* Evidence — Circumstantial evidence must be cogent and form an unbroken chain excluding other reasonable hypotheses.
* Burden of proof — Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to produce ballistic/exhibits can weaken circumstantial linkage.
|
29 November 2012 |
|
Improperly tendered PF3 expunged, but child's credible evidence and appellant’s admission sustain conviction; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Rape of a child – Conviction based on complainant’s credible evidence and defendant’s admission. * Evidence – PF3 improperly tendered in breach of section 240(3) CPA and expunged. * Evidence Act s.127(7) – Evidence of child victim need not be corroborated. * Appeal – Conviction and mandatory life sentence upheld.
|
29 November 2012 |
|
Failure to conduct a voir dire for the 14‑year‑old complainant rendered the rape conviction unsafe and led to its quashing.
Criminal law – Rape – Child complainant – necessity of voir dire; Evidence – testimony of relatives – no automatic need for corroboration; Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) – admissibility of PF3; Conviction unsafe where sole child witness’ evidence is discounted.
|
29 November 2012 |
|
Conviction set aside and retrial ordered after failure to conduct/record voir dire and to inform accused of PF3 rights.
Evidence — Voir dire — s.127(2) Evidence Act — strict compliance required; failure to record questions and answers fatal. Criminal procedure — Medical report (PF3) — s.240(3) CPA — accused must be informed of right to call medical officer; failure renders PF3 inadmissible. Conviction — adequacy of evidence — expungement of improperly received child testimony and PF3 may leave insufficient evidence to sustain conviction. Remedy — retrial ordered where trial incurably flawed by fundamental procedural irregularities.
|
29 November 2012 |
|
Where good cause is shown under section 361(2), the High Court must grant extension without assessing appeal merits.
Criminal procedure – extension of time – s.361(2) Criminal Procedure Act – once good cause established extension should ordinarily be granted – High Court erred by determining merits of a non-existent appeal – summary rejection under s.364(1) – Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2) – Court may strike out improperly lodged appeal – Rule 47 discretion to extend time.
|
28 November 2012 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification evidence was unreliable due to inadequate lighting evidence and delayed identification.
Criminal law — Armed robbery — Charge defect curable under s.388 Criminal Procedure Act; Visual identification — necessity to specify type and intensity of illumination and effect of torchlight; Delay/failure to name suspects at earliest opportunity undermines credibility; Second appeal — interference with concurrent findings only where misdirections/non-directions result in miscarriage of justice.
|
28 November 2012 |
|
Oral notice to prison officials can satisfy section 361(1)(a); High Court erred in dismissing extension of time.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to give notice of intention to appeal – section 361(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act – oral notice to prison officers sufficient – supplying copies of proceedings evidences steps to appeal.
|
27 November 2012 |
|
Appellant’s murder conviction and death sentence upheld on sufficient circumstantial evidence and rejected alibi.
* Criminal law – murder – reliance on circumstantial evidence – requirement of an unbroken chain of facts incompatible with innocence; * Defence of alibi – failure to give notice under s.194(5) – effect on credibility; * Standard of proof – exclusion of reasonable alternative explanations; * Appeal – evaluation and sufficiency of trial judge’s reasoning.
|
23 November 2012 |
|
Respondent employer held liable for negligent blasting causing applicant's dependent's death; damages awarded and insurance excluded.
Employer negligence – failure to verify all employees clear before blasting; Mining safety procedures – tagging and logbook checks; Burden and production of documents – failure to produce logbook and investigation reports weakens defence; Hearsay/newspaper material – contextual weight in closed operations; Fatal accidents – damages assessed under Law Reform (Fatal Accidents) Act s.4(2); Insurance payments excluded from assessment under s.7 CAP 310.
|
23 November 2012 |
|
A Principal Resident Magistrate with extended jurisdiction cannot validly hear a High Court appeal sitting in the High Court registry.
Criminal procedure — Appellate jurisdiction — Principal Resident Magistrate with extended jurisdiction — Limits of sitting in High Court registry — Jurisdictional defect renders proceedings a nullity; proceedings quashed and record remitted under revisional jurisdiction.
|
23 November 2012 |
|
Appellant's excavation harmed respondent but special damages were not strictly proved; Court reduced award to Tshs.500,000,000 with interest.
* Mining and land disputes – designation of quarry sites – evidentiary burden to prove allocation by Ministry of Works.
* Mining law – validity of mineral rights – procedural/pleading limitations on challenging licence validity on appeal.
* Mining Act s.95 – ministerial consent – applicability requires evidence of land dedicated for non‑mining public purposes or proximity to government works.
* Corporate law – separate legal personality – no lifting of corporate veil without justification.
* Evidence – admissibility and weight of expert valuation – registration of surveyor suffices unless disqualification proved.
* Damages – special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved (time, quantity, market price).
|
7 November 2012 |
|
Notice of appeal struck out for failure to prosecute; costs awarded to the applicant.
* Civil procedure — Appeal — Notice of appeal — Striking out for failure to take essential steps to prosecute.
* Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 63(2) (proceeding in absence), rule 82 (1979 Rules) and Rule 130(a) — applicability and enforcement.
* Service on corporate respondent — absence of appearance — ex parte proceeding permitted.
* Costs — award to successful applicant on strike-out application.
|
6 November 2012 |