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.
27 judgments
Skip past Court registries
Skip past years
Skip past months
Skip to results

Results. 27 judgments found.

27 judgments
February 2014
An out-of-time notice of appeal renders High Court proceedings a nullity; the applicant's appeal is struck out.
  • Appellate practice — Appellate jurisdiction — Revisionary powers — court may suo motu raise limitation defects and invoke
  • Civil procedure — extension of time
    • — delay in hearing extension application may be attributable to the court
    • — registry records admissible to show filing
  • Criminal procedure — Notice of appeal — time limit — filing outside ten-day period renders High Court proceedings a nullity
28 February 2014
A decree dated differently from the judgment contravenes Order XX Rule 7 and renders any subsequent appeal incompetent.
  • Appellate practice — Revision — Court of Appeal may invoke s.4(2) revisional jurisdiction to quash proceedings and strike out incompetent appeals — Appellate Jurisdiction Act s 4(2)
  • Civil procedure — Appeals — defective decree — Order XX Rule 7 CPC
28 February 2014
Review applications filed beyond the 60‑day Rule 66(3) limit are incompetent and were struck out; seek extension to proceed.
  • Appellate practice — Appellate review
    • — Competency and timing
    • — late review applications incompetent
  • Appellate practice — extension of time — Extension application is antecedent and should be filed separately
28 February 2014
28 February 2014
Complainant's credible testimony and eyewitness account established rape; the applicant's appeal is dismissed.
  • Criminal law — Evidence
    • — complainant's testimony sufficient
    • — Exhibits not essential to conviction
  • Criminal law — Rape — proof of lack of consent and penetration
28 February 2014
Chronic illness and incarceration can constitute sufficient reason to extend time to file a notice of appeal.
  • Civil procedure — Appeal — Extension of time
28 February 2014
Victim testimony alone can suffice to prove rape under section 127(7); mandatory compensation must be ordered under the Penal Code.
  • Criminal law — Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) — PF.3 admissibility and non-compliance
  • Criminal law — Evidence Act s.127(7) — uncorroborated testimony of sexual offence victims may suffice
  • Criminal law — Penal Code s131(1)
    • — appellate review of concurrent factual findings
    • — mandatory compensation for rape victims
  • Criminal law — Rape — proof of penetration — victim testimony as best evidence
28 February 2014
Applicant granted extension of time and substituted service by registered post after evidencing inability to trace respondents.
  • Civil procedure — extension of time
    • — Order
    • — Substituted service by Registered Post
27 February 2014
Applicant who gave an uncontested reasonable explanation for delay granted 30 days to file notice of appeal.
  • Civil procedure — Extension of time to appeal
    • — reasonable explanation (late communication and lack of prison stationery) accepted and not contradicted
    • — sufficiency of cause
27 February 2014
An application supported by an affidavit with a defective jurat is incompetent and may be struck out with costs.
  • Civil procedure
    • — Affidavit formalities — defective jurat and verification can render an application incompetent
    • — Costs — costs to follow the event when application is incompetent
    • — preliminary objection — concession by applicant and effect on jurisdiction and competence of application
27 February 2014
Failure to read substituted charges and take plea renders the trial a nullity; conviction quashed, no retrial.
  • Criminal procedure — Akbarali Damji)
    • — conviction quashed
    • — no retrial where sentence already served
  • Criminal procedure — substituted/altered charge — omission renders trial a nullity
26 February 2014
Failure to take a plea to substituted charges rendered the trial a nullity; convictions quashed and no retrial ordered.
  • Criminal law
    • — Conviction — Effect of failure to take plea to new or altered charge — Trial becomes a nullity
    • — Trial procedure — Arraignment — Section 228 Criminal Procedure Act
  • Evidence — Sufficiency of evidence — conviction unsafe where procedural breach combines with weak prosecution case
26 February 2014
26 February 2014
A prisoner's inability to compel prison officers' assistance can constitute good cause to extend time to file a notice of appeal.
  • Prison law — Prisoners’ rights — Practical dependency on prison officers for filing appeals — relevance in applications for extension of time
26 February 2014
25 February 2014
A defective charge and unproven voluntariness of a cautioned statement rendered the armed robbery conviction unsafe.
  • Criminal law — Armed robbery
  • Criminal procedure — Cautioned statement — voluntariness and admissibility
  • Criminal procedure — Evidence
    • — Benefit of doubt and safety of conviction
    • — possession and statement insufficient where charge defective and testimony inconsistent
20 February 2014
Ignorance of law or counsel's mistake does not constitute sufficient cause to extend time for filing a notice of appeal.
  • Civil procedure
    • — extension of time — sufficient cause required to extend time to file notice of appeal
    • — Legal principle — ignorance of the law or counsel’s mistake is not sufficient cause
    • — Practice
    • — Procedural law — repeated filings and withdrawals do not necessarily amount to pursuing alternative remedies
19 February 2014
Applicant prematurely sought extension from Court of Appeal after High Court struck out his leave application for incompetence.
  • Appellate practice — leave to appeal — extension of time
  • Civil procedure — striking out — Remedy after strike‑out
  • Land disputes — leave to appeal — standard for leave: existence of an arguable issue or illegality
18 February 2014
An application founded on wrong legal provisions is incompetent and must be struck out, not adjudicated on its merits.
  • Civil procedure
    • — Competence of applications — application based on wrong legal foundation — incompetent application to be struck out, not heard on merits
    • — Court of appeal rules — Extension of time
18 February 2014
A review application was struck out for failing to state grounds and for relying on a defective affidavit.
  • Civil procedure
    • — Affidavit contents — Ex Parte Matovu
    • — preliminary objection — Applicant may not properly file preliminary objection against respondent's preliminary objection
    • — Review — Grounds for review
17 February 2014
Application for extension of time was incompetent since applicant failed to first seek relief from the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal.
  • Civil procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.11
    • — concurrent jurisdiction but Rule 47 binding
    • — Criminal exception
  • Civil procedure — Competence — premature application to Court of Appeal struck out
  • Civil procedure — extension of time
  • Tax law — Tax revenue appeals act s.25(1),(2) — appeals to Court of Appeal from Tribunal
14 February 2014
A taxation reference must raise law or principle; inability to pay does not justify varying a taxed bill.
  • Court of Appeal rules (Rule 125)  Taxation reference limited to law or principle; not a forum to re-open quantum; taxing officer's decision must show error of law or principle to warrant interference; impecuniosity not a sufficient ground to reduce taxed costs.
12 February 2014
Court upheld attempted murder conviction: information and PF3 admissibility were sufficient; identification credible, alibi rejected.
  • Criminal law
    • — Attempted murder — Sufficiency of information
    • — Identification and alibi — appellate reappraisal permissible where identification evidence is strong
  • Criminal procedure — admissibility of medical report (PF3) — Right of accused to have report’s author summoned for cross‑examination
11 February 2014
The applicant's extension application was struck out because the supporting affidavit was unattested and thus defective.
  • Civil procedure
    • — Competence of applications — striking out of application
    • — Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — unattested affidavit is ineffective
    • — extension of time
11 February 2014
An application for extension of time was struck out because the supporting affidavit was not attested, violating Rule 48(1).
  • Appellate practice
    • — extension of time — requirement of sufficient reasons and supporting affidavit — Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, Rule 48(1)
    • — supporting affidavit — Defective supporting affidavit — Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, Rule 48(1)
11 February 2014
The applicant's request for extension and stay was struck out for lack of the impugned order and a valid Notice of Appeal.
  • Civil procedure
    • — Appeals — Valid notice of appeal as jurisdictional prerequisite — Compliance with Rule 83 and Form D of the Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 11(2)(b))
    • — extension of time to apply for stay of execution — Requirement to attach decree or order and supporting documents
9 February 2014
A non-party cannot invoke Rule 66(1)(b) to review a decision for being unheeded; revision or other remedies are appropriate.
  • Civil procedure
    • — Distinction between review and revision — revision may permit third-party applications where rights are affected
    • — Remedies for non-parties affected by prior proceedings — objection to execution or fresh suit
    • — Review
1 February 2014