|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2015 |
|
|
A defective Certificate of Delay requiring rectification can amount to good cause for extending time to lodge an appeal.
Court of Appeal — Extension of time under Rule 10 — Defective Certificate of Delay — Clerical error and rectification as good cause — Delay not due to dilatory conduct — Arguable point whether complaint should have been dismissed rather than struck out.
|
30 December 2015 |
|
|
30 December 2015 |
|
Unsafe night-time identification rendered convictions unsustainable; the Court quashed sentences and ordered release of the appellants.
* Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – each appellant must file or be specifically named in a notice of appeal; a notice filed by one appellant does not institute appeal for others. * Evidence – Visual identification – where identification occurs at night under unfavourable conditions, visual ID is weak and unsafe; convictions based solely on such ID are unsafe. * Appellate powers – section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Court may nullify proceedings and set aside convictions/sentences where conviction is unsustainable.
|
30 December 2015 |
|
Night-time visual identification was unsafe; convictions and sentences were quashed and appellants ordered released.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Requirement that each appellant must institute appeal by filing a notice of appeal. * Criminal law – Visual identification – Night-time identification unreliable; convictions unsafe where identification not watertight (Waziri principles). * Appellate jurisdiction – Use of section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to nullify proceedings and set aside convictions/sentences.
|
30 December 2015 |
|
Notice of appeal must be filed for each appellant; identification evidence at night was unreliable, convictions quashed.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night – standards for reliable identification and risk of mistaken identity; Civil procedure – Appeal instituted by notice of appeal – each appellant must be named or file notice; Appellate jurisdiction – Power under s.4(2) AJA to quash convictions where evidence is insufficient.
|
30 December 2015 |
|
Conflicting Ward Tribunal judgments render subsequent tribunal decisions void and require rehearing de novo.
Procedural irregularity – conflicting signed Ward Tribunal judgments – fatal to subsequent tribunal findings; decisions set aside and matter ordered reheard de novo; no order as to costs.
|
29 December 2015 |
|
Respondent failed to prove ownership; trial magistrate misapplied burden of proof and appeal was allowed.
Civil procedure – burden of proof – plaintiff must prove ownership on balance of probabilities; appellate review of credibility findings and requirement for trial court to give reasons when rejecting evidence; validity of sale agreement and ownership disputes over land/structure.
|
28 December 2015 |
|
Appellant’s superior title established; invitee respondent’s occupation insufficient to defeat ownership—appeal allowed, lower judgments reversed.
Land law – ownership and occupation – evidence of original cultivation and succession of title; invitee occupation versus proprietary right; weight of oral testimony; adverse possession not established.
|
28 December 2015 |
|
Application for security for costs struck out for failing to cite Rule 120(3); Rule 4 inapplicable.
Security for costs – application for deposit of security – correct enabling provision is Rule 120(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules; non‑citation of the applicable rule is a fundamental defect justifying striking out; Rule 4 inapplicable where specific rule exists; Court of Appeal not an executing court.
|
23 December 2015 |
|
An application to lift a garnishee order is in effect a stay of execution and wrong citation renders it incompetent.
Execution procedure – Garnishee order nisi under Order XXI r.45(1)(c) is part of execution; lifting it equates to stay of execution – Wrong or non‑citation of specific enabling rule (Rule 11(2)) renders application incompetent.
|
23 December 2015 |
|
A 19‑year delay and mere evidentiary complaints did not establish good cause to extend time for review.
* Criminal procedure – Application for extension of time to file review – Rule 10 requires good cause and factual account of delay; must account for each day. * Review under Rule 66(1) limited to: manifest error on face of record; deprivation of hearing; nullity; lack of jurisdiction; judgment procured by fraud or perjury. * Evidentiary disagreements and challenges to concurrent findings of fact are not grounds for review and may constitute abuse of process. * Long inordinate delay (19 years) militates against granting extension.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
A 19‑year unexplained delay and improper review grounds do not justify extension of time to seek review.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 requires showing good cause and accounting for every day of delay. * Criminal procedure – Review applications – Permissible grounds under Rule 66(1): manifest error on face of record, denial of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, fraud or perjury. * Review limitation – Re‑evaluation of evidence is not a proper ground for review and may amount to abuse of process. * Delay – Inordinate delay (19 years) unexplained is fatal to an extension application.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
A 19‑year unexplained delay and re‑argument of evidence defeats an application for extension of time to seek review.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time — Rule 10 requires good cause and accounting for delay; Review — Rule 66(1) limits grounds to manifest error on the face of the record, denial of hearing, nullity, want of jurisdiction, or judgment procured by fraud/perjury; Inordinate delay (19 years) and re‑argument of evidence constitute abuse of process; Lack of prison legal officers insufficient excuse for prolonged delay.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
The appellant's failure to file mandatory written submissions under Rule 106(1) rendered the appeal unmaintainable.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 106(1) mandatory requirement to file written submissions within sixty days – consequences of non-compliance.
* Civil procedure – Judicial discretion under Rules 106(9) and 106(19) – exceptional circumstances required to grant relief for late filing.
* Court's duty under Rule 2 to pursue substantive justice does not permit overriding mandatory procedural requirements without sufficient justification.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Failure to file written submissions under Rule 106(1) rendered the appeal not maintainable and it was struck out.
* Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 106(1) — mandatory duty to file written submissions within 60 days; non‑compliance may render appeal not maintainable.
* Civil procedure — discretion under Rule 106(9)/(19) — conditions for allowing late filing or dismissing appeal; exercise depends on circumstances.
* Court Rules — Rule 2 (substantive justice) cannot be used to circumvent mandatory procedural requirements.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Failure to file mandatory written submissions under Rule 106(1) renders an appeal unmaintainable and liable to be struck out.
* Court of Appeal procedure – Rule 106(1) mandatory requirement to file written submissions within sixty days; * Discretion under Rule 106(9) and (19) – extension of time requires material/exceptional circumstances; * Rule 2 (substantive justice) cannot be used to override clear mandatory procedural requirements; * Failure to comply with Rule 106(1) may render appeal unmaintainable and liable to be struck out.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Failure to file the mandatory written submission under rule 106(1) rendered the appeal unmaintainable and it was struck out.
Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 106(1) mandatory requirement to file written submissions; Rules 106(9) and 106(19) – discretionary power to extend time or excuse non-compliance; Rule 2 – duty to achieve substantive justice; striking out appeal for procedural non-compliance.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Trial court erred by proceeding without medical report and statutory findings required under section 220 CPA.
Criminal procedure – Section 220 CPA – detention for medical examination – requirement to produce and admit medical officer’s report – obligation to make findings under section 220(4) and apply section 219 consequences – revisional powers under section 4(3) AJA to quash and remit for non-compliance.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Proceeding with a preliminary hearing without admitting or acting on a mental hospital report breached section 220 and warranted revision.
Criminal procedure – insanity inquiries – preliminary hearing – requirement to admit medical report and make findings under section 220(3)-(4) CPA – failure to comply an irregularity – revisional powers under section 4(3) AJA – quash and remit.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Proceeding with a preliminary hearing without admitting a required medical report under s.220 warranted quashing and remittal.
Criminal Procedure Act, s.220(1),(3),(4) – detention for medical examination – requirement to admit medical report and make findings on insanity; Appellate Jurisdiction Act, s.4(3) – revisional powers to quash and remit where statutory procedures not followed; irregularity in proceeding with preliminary hearing without medical report.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Sickness and counsel’s other commitments may be good cause for delay but do not justify waiving Rule 106(1); applicants must seek an extension.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 106(1) (written submissions) and Rule 106(19) (waiver) – whether illness/engagements of counsel amount to exceptional circumstances; * Extension of time – good cause v. exceptional circumstances; * Rule 2 – duty to achieve substantial justice; * Rule 63(2) – proceeding in absence of respondents' counsel; * Application to supplement record of appeal – inclusion of lower court judgment and exhibits.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Court: counsel’s illness/overcommitment may justify extension but not waiver of written submissions requirement.
Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules, r.106(1) & (19) — requirement to file written submissions — illness/overcommitment of counsel as good cause for extension but not as exceptional circumstances to waive filing; amendment/supplement of record of appeal; r.63(2) — determination in absence of respondent's counsel.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Deponent competent under Rule 49(1), but failure to provide mandatory security under Rule 11(2)(d)(iii) defeats stay application.
Court of Appeal — stay of execution — Rule 11(2)(d) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — conditions for stay (substantial loss; no unreasonable delay; security) are conjunctive — Rule 49(1) permits any person with knowledge to swear supporting affidavits — locus standi of deponent — corporate appearance provisions (Rule 30(3)) not determinative of competency to depose.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for delayed service of a notice of appeal; application dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time under Rule 10 – requirement to show good cause; sufficiency of efforts to effect service; service of Notice of Appeal under Rule 84(1); non‑compliance with Rule 48(1) and affidavit concerns – abuse of court process.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Extension of time to seek review refused for unexplained long delay, lack of good cause and no arguable grounds.
Criminal procedure — extension of time to apply for review — Rule 10 — requirement of good cause — necessity to plead grounds under Rule 66(1) — mere dissatisfaction insufficient — factors: length of delay, reasons, arguable case, prejudice.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Application for extension of time to seek review dismissed for inordinate delay, lack of good cause and absence of arguable grounds.
Criminal procedure – extension of time – Rule 10: requirement to show "good cause"; Review jurisdiction – limited to grounds in Rule 66(1); Mere dissatisfaction with a Court of Appeal judgment not a basis for review; Constitutional complaint (article 13(6)) cannot substitute for Rule 66(1) grounds; Considerations when exercising discretion: length of delay, reasons for delay, arguable case, prejudice to respondent.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
An applicant must show good cause, arguable grounds and avoid unexplained delay to obtain extension for Court of Appeal review.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time to file review – Rule 10 – requirement to show good cause. * Court of Appeal review – Rule 66(1) – must state ground(s) of review; mere dissatisfaction insufficient. * No constitutional or statutory right to review Court of Appeal decisions; review power exercised rarely. * Factors in discretion: length of delay, reasons, arguable case, prejudice to respondent (African Airlines approach).
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Appellant’s possession of deceased’s motorcycle shortly after murder upheld doctrine of recent possession; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – Doctrine of recent possession; requirements for invoking recent possession; retracted extra‑judicial statement may be relied upon if corroborated; conviction sustainable only where evidence excludes reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
|
15 December 2015 |
|
The applicant recovered hotel charges and general damages after a respondent personally undertook to pay for guests' accommodation.
Contract and commercial disputes – hotel accommodation – agency/assumption of liability – evidential proof of undertaking to pay – deposits paid by third party – relevance and linkage to services rendered – appellate re-evaluation of factual findings; damages and interest.
|
14 December 2015 |
|
Whether the appellant's memorandum was time‑barred as filed before service of the certified record of appeal.
Criminal procedure — Appeal time limits — Rule 72(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — Twenty‑one day period runs from service of certified record of appeal; distinction between copy of proceedings and record of appeal; Dispatch Book not admissible to decide preliminary point of law; premature memorandum struck out; Rule 4(2)(a) and Rule 72(5) invoked to allow refiling.
|
14 December 2015 |
|
Whether the appeal was time-barred where the memorandum was filed before service of the certified record of appeal.
Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 72(1): commencement of 21-day period upon service of the certified record of appeal; Registrar’s letter supplying proceedings not equivalent to service of record; premature memorandum of appeal struck out; Court may allow refiling under Rule 4(2)(a) and Rule 72(5) to secure substantial justice.
|
14 December 2015 |
|
Inadequate summing up to assessors and exclusion of their participation rendered the trial a nullity; retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Trials with assessors – Requirement of adequate summing up to assessors; assessors' participation and right to question witnesses; failure to involve assessors renders trial a nullity; retrial ordered.
|
14 December 2015 |
|
Inadequate summing up and insufficient involvement of assessors rendered the High Court trial a nullity; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Trials with assessors – Duty to sum up adequately to assessors (summary of facts, evidence, law, and defence) – Assessors’ participation, including questioning witnesses – Failure to comply renders trial a nullity – Conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
|
14 December 2015 |
|
|
14 December 2015 |
|
|
14 December 2015 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where dispute was factual and concurrent credibility findings raised no point of law.
Land law – ownership dispute – leave to appeal – findings of fact based on witness credibility – concurrent findings of lower courts – appellate restraint where no point of law shown.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
|
11 December 2015 |
|
Revocation without notice to show cause breaches natural justice; alternative plot ordered and unsupported compensation quashed.
* Land law – revocation of lease – requirement to afford opportunity to be heard (notice to show cause) – breach of natural justice renders revocation void. * Administrative law – procedural fairness and adherence to laid down procedure required for revocation. * Remedies – where both parties err, alternative land allocation may be appropriate remedy rather than setting aside third-party allocation. * Compensation – awards must be supported by pleadings and evidence. * Reliance on Mbeya Rukwa Auto-parts v Jestina George Mwakyoma (procedural fairness).
|
11 December 2015 |
|
Revocation of lease was void for denial of hearing; alternative plot ordered, monetary award quashed for lack of evidence.
Land law – Revocation of lease – procedural fairness and natural justice – right to be heard/notice to show cause – invalidity of administrative revocation; remedy—alternative land allocation versus setting aside subsequent allocation; compensation – requirement of evidential basis.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
Failure to inform an accused of statutory defence rights and omission to enter a formal conviction render proceedings invalid.
* Criminal procedure – Accused’s rights under section 231 CPA – Duty to explain right to give evidence, call witnesses and produce exhibits – Failure amounts to breach of fair trial.
* Sentencing limits – Section 170(1) CPA – Subordinate courts’ maximum custody term – Illegal sentence exceeding statutory limit.
* Formal requirements of judgment – Section 235(1) and 312(2) CPA – Conviction must be entered and judgment must specify offence, statutory provision and punishment.
* Remedies – Quash and set aside defective proceedings; remit to trial court for compliant judgment; retrial only in interests of justice.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
Wrong statutory citation rendered the respondent's High Court application for certiorari incompetent and the proceedings null.
Administrative law — Judicial review — Certiorari — Requirement to properly move the court by citing the correct statutory provision — Wrong or inapplicable citation renders application incompetent and proceedings a nullity.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
A wrong statutory citation renders an application for certiorari incompetent and the resulting proceedings a nullity.
Administrative law — Judicial review — Certiorari — Proper statutory citation required — Wrong or wholly inapplicable provision renders application incompetent — Proceedings and orders made when court not properly moved are nullity.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
High Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction where substantive special damages fell within magistrates' monetary limits.
Civil procedure — Jurisdiction — Pecuniary jurisdiction determined by substantive (special) damages, not general damages — Section 13 Civil Procedure Code (suits to be instituted in lowest competent court) — Section 40(2)(b) Magistrates' Courts Act (monetary limits) — Article 108 Constitution — Lack of jurisdiction grounds for quashing proceedings.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
High Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the substantive special damages claim fell within magistrates' court monetary limits.
* Jurisdiction – High Court pecuniary jurisdiction – Article 108 Constitution – subject to other written laws. * Pecuniary jurisdiction determined by substantive claim (special damages), not general damages. * Civil Procedure Code s.13 – suit to be instituted in the court of lowest grade competent to try it. * Magistrates' Courts Act s.40(2)(b) – district/resident magistrate court monetary limits (Tshs.10,000,000)
|
11 December 2015 |
|
Conviction without statutory change of plea is void; proceedings quashed and retrial ordered from point of PW1’s completed evidence.
* Criminal procedure – Change of plea – Where accused initially pleads not guilty, a later admission requires compliance with s.228(1)–(2) CPA before conviction. * Failure to record statutory change of plea vitiates conviction and cannot be cured under s.388 CPA. * Remedy – quash conviction and sentence; order retrial from point of defect.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
Conviction based on an unrecorded change from not guilty to guilty is a nullity; retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – change of plea – requirement to state substance of charge and record admission under section 228(1)–(2) CPA; conviction entered without formally recording change from not guilty to guilty is a nullity; procedural irregularity incurable under section 388 CPA; retrial ordered.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
Oral or prison-assisted notice of intention to appeal suffices; summary rejection for 'want of notice' was improperly made.
Criminal procedure – extension of time – notice of intention to appeal – s.361(1) CPA – oral/prison-officer notice sufficient – summary rejection sparingly used – s.4(2) AJA revisional powers.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
Summary rejection for want of written notice was erroneous where oral/prison notice had been given; appeal restored.
* Criminal procedure – notice of intention to appeal – s.361(1) CPA – oral notice and prison officer's communication sufficing as notice.
* Criminal procedure – summary rejection of appeal – exceptional power to be exercised sparingly; natural justice considerations.
* Appellate jurisdiction – revisional powers – s.4(2) AJA – quashing and setting aside erroneous summary rejection and restoring appeal.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
A defective or unserved notice of appeal renders the appellant's appeal incompetent and is struck out with costs.
Appeal procedure – Notice of appeal – Compliance with Rule 83(6) and Form D; Service requirements – Rule 84(1) and proof of service under Rule 96(1)(b)/(j); Multiple notices – only one valid and served notice required; Defective or unserved notice renders appeal incompetent.
|
11 December 2015 |
|
A notice of appeal not complying with Form D and lacking proof of service renders the appeal incompetent and is struck out.
* Civil procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal – Form D (Rule 83(6)) – notice must be addressed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania and follow prescribed format. * Civil procedure – Appeal – Service and proof of service – Rule 84(1) and Rule 96(1)(b),(j) – failure to serve and include proof of service renders appeal incompetent. * Filing of a corrective notice does not cure defect where it was not served on respondent.
|
11 December 2015 |