|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2018 |
|
|
Appellate court affirmed eight-year manslaughter sentence despite generalized mitigation analysis due to brutal, disproportionate attack.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – Sentencing – Mitigating factors must be considered specifically – Appellate interference limited where aggravating circumstances (brutal attack, lethal weapon, disproportionate force) justify sentence.
|
30 December 2018 |
|
Stay of execution refused: applicants showed loss and timely appeal but failed to provide mandatory security.
Court of Appeal — stay of execution — Rule 11(2) Court of Appeal Rules — mandatory cumulative conditions: substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance — possession of original title by respondent does not obviate need for alternative security — property subject to decretal sale cannot serve as security.
|
27 December 2018 |
|
Reference against Taxing Officer’s decision dismissed as time-barred; statutory 21-day limit and Interpretation Act applied.
* Advocates Remuneration Order (GN. No. 264/2015) – Order 7(1)-(2): reference to High Court from Taxing Officer to be instituted by chamber summons supported by affidavit within 21 days.
* Limitation law – computation of time: section 19(6) Law of Limitation Act and applicability of Interpretation Act s.60(1)(c) and (e) when deadlines fall on non-working days.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection on point of law – dismissal of proceedings filed out of statutory time without leave.
|
27 December 2018 |
|
Appeal dismissed as misconceived; proper remedy was to apply to set aside the summary decree under Order XXXV r.8.
Civil Procedure – Summary suit under Order XXXV CPC – Proper use of summons to appear and defend – Joinder of guarantors in summary proceedings – Summary/default judgment akin to ex‑parte decree – Setting aside summary decrees under Order XXXV r.8 requires exceptional circumstances and a prima facie defence – Appellate limitation: courts should not decide issues not determined by trial court; Rule 93(1) compliance.
|
24 December 2018 |
|
A trial magistrate cannot close the prosecution's case; improper closure vitiates subsequent proceedings and requires rehearing.
Criminal procedure — trial magistrate has no power to close prosecution's case — improper closure prejudices prosecution and vitiates subsequent proceedings — unfinished witness evidence and denial of cross‑examination — remedy: quash closure and order rehearing under s.4(2) AJA; ancillary issues: identification, admissibility of cautioned statements, failure to tender vehicle as exhibit.
|
24 December 2018 |
|
Revision against a High Court interim injunction is barred as interlocutory under section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
* Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.5(2)(d) – bar on appeals/revisions against interlocutory High Court orders; interlocutory proceedings defined; revision competency. * Civil Procedure – Order XXXVII r.5 – remedy to vary/discharge injunction. * Record of revision – requirement to include relevant documents under s.4(3) AJA.
|
24 December 2018 |
|
An appeal brought without required leave is incompetent and must be struck out, not withdrawn or dismissed.
Civil procedure — Appeal requiring leave — Incompetence for want of leave — Court lacks jurisdiction — Incompetent appeals are struck out rather than dismissed or withdrawn — Application of Rules 102(2) and 102(5).
|
24 December 2018 |
|
An appeal against a summary judgment is misconceived; defendants should apply to set aside the decree showing exceptional circumstances and a defence.
Civil procedure – Summary suits (Order XXXV CPC) – summons to appear and defend – effect of non-appearance – summary judgment akin to ex-parte decree – setting aside summary decree (Order XXXV r.8) – requirement to show exceptional circumstances and meritorious defence – improper to raise undecided trial issues on appeal.
|
20 December 2018 |
|
Preliminary objection alleging documents were drawn by an unqualified person was not a pure point of law and was overruled.
Civil procedure — Preliminary objection — Must raise a pure point of law (Mukisa test) — Allegation that appeal documents were drawn by an unqualified person requires factual inquiry — Business Names Act s.23 not applicable to court filings; Court of Appeal Rules govern preparation and filing of appeal documents.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Stay application timely but struck out for defective documents; leave granted to refile within fourteen days.
Court of Appeal — stay of execution — Rule 11(4) timing — service of notice triggers 14-day limit; defective application papers — incorrect reference to "judgment and decree" vs "ruling and drawn order" — incompetence and striking out; discretion to grant leave to refile; costs awarded to respondent.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Timely stay application struck out for defective motion and affidavit; leave granted to refile and costs awarded to respondent.
Stay of execution – Rule 11(4) Court of Appeal Rules – time limit for stay applications – notice of execution – procedural defect in notice of motion and affidavit referencing "judgment and decree" instead of "ruling and drawn order" – application struck out as incompetent – leave to refile under Rule 4(2)(b) – costs to respondent.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Appeal remitted for locus in quo inspection to ascertain whether the disputed house is on Plot No.16 or No.17.
Land dispute – conflicting evidence as to whether disputed house is on Plot No.16 or No.17; locus in quo inspection/additional evidence appropriate in exceptional cases; Rule 36(1)(b) CA Rules invoked; trial court to involve senior land officer and certify findings.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Accused failed to prove legal insanity; expert report properly discounted and conviction and death sentence affirmed.
Criminal law — Insanity defence — Burden on accused to prove insanity on balance of probabilities; expert psychiatric evidence not binding and may be discounted where methodology, timing or reasoning are inadequate; judicial assessment must consider totality of evidence including conduct before and after offence and surrounding circumstances.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Affidavit annexures are evidence; applicants for extension of time must account for every day of delay or relief will be refused.
Administrative law – extension of time – documents annexed to affidavit constitute evidence – submissions are not evidence – applicant must account for every day of delay (Lyamuya and Bushiri principles).
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Proceedings and default judgment by a judge lacking Chief Justice’s assignment are void and set aside.
* High Court Act s.13 – Chief Justice’s regulation and assignment of business – judge acting without assignment lacks jurisdiction; proceedings thereby null and void. * Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2) – invocation of revisionary powers to quash proceedings and set aside default judgment. * Default judgment and procedural irregularity – necessity of proper assignment before trial continues.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
A notice of appeal that fails to state accurately the substance of the trial court’s ruling is defective and struck out.
Appeals — Notice of appeal — Rule 68(1) & (2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules — mandatory requirement to state briefly the nature/substance of the impugned order or ruling — failure to accurately describe the trial court’s decision renders the notice defective and incompetent; competency of appeal; appellate procedure.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Failure to apply mandatory transitional provision requiring trial under repealed procedure rendered the murder trial a nullity; retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure — transitional provision (s.402(1) Criminal Procedure Act) — matters committed before Act must be tried under repealed Decree (Cap.14) unless Chief Justice orders otherwise (s.402(2)) — failure to comply renders trial a nullity; conviction and sentence quashed; retrial ordered.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Appellant failed to prove allocation of 300 acres on the balance of probabilities; appeal dismissed with costs.
* Land law – proof of allocation/ownership – claimant must prove allocation and size on balance of probabilities (Evidence Act ss.110–111). * Civil procedure – preliminary objection based on disputed facts is improper; factual disputes over service should be pursued under Rule 89(2), not as a pure preliminary point. * Evidence – documentary and oral evidence must be specific and coherent to establish land size and ownership.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Appellant failed to prove allocation of 300 acres; appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence; costs awarded to respondent.
Land law – proof of ownership/allocation – burden and standard of proof in civil cases (s.110–111 Evidence Act) – documentary evidence insufficient to establish 300 acres – preliminary objection based on service dates involves facts and should be pursued under Rule 89(2).
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Sickness supported by medical evidence can constitute sufficient cause to extend time to file an appeal.
Extension of time – Section 14 Law of Limitation Act – sufficient cause – sickness and medical evidence – discretion to extend time must be exercised judicially – appeal time under s.80(2) Law of Marriage Act (45 days).
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Sentence reduced after trial judge failed to consider appellant's mitigating factors and time already served.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Mitigating factors – First offender and pre-trial custody – Appellate interference where sentence is manifestly excessive – R v. Mohamed Ali Jamal applied.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Appellate court reduced a manslaughter sentence for failure to expressly consider material mitigating factors.
* Criminal law – Sentencing – Requirement for trial court to expressly consider and specify mitigating and aggravating factors – Generalised statements insufficient.
* Appellate review – Interference with sentence only where trial court acted on wrong principle or overlooked material factors.
* Mitigating factors – time in remand, plea of guilty and dependants as relevant considerations.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Sentence reduced where trial judge failed to consider mitigating factors including guilty plea, youth and time served.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Mitigating factors – guilty plea, first offender status, time served and youth – appellate interference where trial court overlooks material mitigation.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
An appeal with a defective decree and missing essential records is incompetent; struck out with leave to refile within 60 days.
Court of Appeal procedure – Record of appeal – Requirement for a copy of the decree (Rule 96(1)(h)) – Appeals from High Court in appellate jurisdiction – mandatory documents (Rule 96(2)) – Defective decree and omitted rulings render appeal incompetent – Invocation of Rule 4(2)(b) and section 3A Appellate Jurisdiction Act to strike out with leave to refile.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Omission of the written application for copies renders the appeal incompetent and time‑barred.
Appeal procedure – Rule 90(1) and (2) – application for copies of proceedings and service requirement; Record of appeal – Rule 96(1)(k) – necessary documents; Overriding objective – cannot override mandatory procedural requirements; Time bar – omission renders appeal incompetent; Costs – High Court fee exemption does not cover appellate costs.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Court quashed child-rape conviction for equivocal plea and procedural defects, ordering a retrial.
Criminal law – guilty plea procedure – equivocal admission "it is true" – requirement to explain ingredients and record accused's own words – defective charge (handwritten alteration) – revisional powers – retrial ordered where trial was procedurally defective (child rape).
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Sentence reduced where trial court failed to consider mitigating factors and evidence of self-defence.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – Sentencing – Failure to consider mitigating factors individually – Evidence of provocation and self-defence – Appellate interference and reduction of sentence.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Appellate hearing adjourned; court ordered return and reconstruction of missing exhibits after unlawful pre-appeal disposal.
Criminal procedure – custody and disposal of exhibits – section 353(1) Criminal Procedure Act – inadmissible/pre-appeal disposal of exhibits – incomplete record of appeal – prosecution's improper removal of exhibits – appellate court’s power to order return and reconstruction of record.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Court granted stay of execution pending appeal after finding the applicant met Rule 11(5)’s cumulative requirements, including security.
Stay of execution – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 11(5) – cumulative requirements: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, provision of security – notice of appeal timing – deposit of bank guarantee pending appeal.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause for extension of time; unsubstantiated theft and vague illegality allegations insufficient.
Court of Appeal – extension of time under Rule 10 – discretionary power – "sufficient cause" required; applicant must account for every day of delay; unsubstantiated loss of documents (no police report) not sufficient; allegations of illegality must be particularized to justify extension.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
Application for extension denied: applicant failed to show sufficient cause, produced no evidence, and did not particularize alleged illegality.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 – discretion to extend time and requirement to show sufficient cause.
* Extension of time – requirement to account for every day of delay and produce supporting evidence (e.g., police reports, affidavits).
* Illegality – alleged illegality may justify extension only if clearly identified and explained.
* Applicability of amended rules – Rule 45A inapplicable where timeline and publication do not permit.
|
14 December 2018 |
|
A stay of execution requires giving security under Rule 11(5)(c); failure to do so justified striking out the application.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Rule 11(5) Court of Appeal Rules – mandatory and cumulative conditions – requirement to give security for due performance (Rule 11(5)(c)) – non‑compliance fatal; application struck out; no order as to costs where defect raised suo motu.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Failure to furnish security under Rule 11(5)(c) defeats an application for stay of execution; application struck out with no costs.
• Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Requirement under Rule 11(5) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules to give security for due performance – Mandatory cumulative conditions for granting stay – Failure to comply warrants striking out application.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Affidavit annexures are evidence, but failure to account for all days of delay justified refusal of extension.
• Civil procedure – extension of time – applicant must account for every day of delay; delay must not be inordinate; applicant must show diligence (Lyamuya principles).
• Evidence – affidavit and annexures constitute evidence and need not be separately tendered as exhibits in chamber summons proceedings; submissions are not evidence.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Order for written submissions on preliminary objection and application did not deny right to be heard; appeal dismissed.
* Civil procedure – Notice of appeal – Rule 68(2) – necessity to state nature of order, finding or ruling appealed against.
* Constitutional law – Right to be heard – Article 13(6)(a)/Article 12(6)(a) – written submissions as opportunity to be heard.
* Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – hearing and determination together with substantive application by written submissions permissible in appropriate cases.
* Appellate practice – premature appeal – appeal lodged before ruling may be unfounded.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities allocation of the claimed 300 acres; appeal dismissed.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objections – factual dispute as to service of record of appeal cannot be treated as a pure point of law; should be pursued under rule to strike out. Evidence – burden and standard of proof in civil cases – plaintiff must prove on balance of probabilities. Land law – proof of allocation/ownership of land must be established by credible, particularized evidence; general or ambiguous documents insufficient.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Blaming prison authorities without their affidavit and failing to show Rule 66(1) grounds defeats an extension application.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time to file review – necessity to show good cause.
* Evidentiary requirement – allegations against prison authorities require corroborating affidavit from the prison authority.
* Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 66(1): extension applicants must indicate grounds of review, not mere dissatisfaction.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Victim's credible identification of a familiar assailant upheld; appeal dismissed; new grounds not entertained.
* Criminal law – Rape – Identification of accused – Victim as best witness; identification by a familiar witness supported by electric light and prolonged encounter. * Identification parade – Not necessary where identifying witness and accused are known to each other. * Evidence – Failure to cross-examine on a material matter ordinarily implies acceptance of the witness's evidence; afterthought defence. * Appeal procedure – Court of Appeal will not entertain grounds not raised in the first appellate court.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Court upheld rape conviction despite minor witness inconsistencies and enhanced sentence due to familial relationship.
Criminal law – rape – credibility of prosecutrix; minor versus material inconsistencies; identification at night involving a known person; delayed medical (PF3) evidence is corroborative only; victim's testimony can suffice to prove rape.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Failure to convict before sentencing is fatal; weak identification and unsworn evidence justified quashing and release.
Criminal procedure – requirement to enter conviction before sentencing (s.235(1) CPA) – omission is fatal and vitiates judgment; Judgment contents (s.312(2) CPA) – conviction must specify offence and provision; Evidence – visual identification must be watertight; unsworn testimony has no evidential value (s.198(1) CPA); Retrial – discretionary under Fatehali Manji; powers of revision under s.4(2) AJA to quash and order release.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Failure to convict before sentence renders the judgment void; weak evidence justified release, not retrial.
Criminal procedure – mandatory requirement to convict before sentencing (s.235(1) CPA) – failure renders judgment a nullity; effect on subsequent appeals; visual identification – need for watertight conditions (Waziri Amani); unsworn witnesses’ evidence no evidential value (s.198(1) CPA); discretion to order retrial guided by Fatehali Manji; use of s.4(2) AJA to quash and set aside.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
An equivocal plea and procedural failure in recording it led to quashing convictions and ordering a retrial.
Criminal procedure – Plea of guilty – Equivocal plea (“it is true”) – Requirement to explain every ingredient and record accused’s own words (s.228(2) CPA) – Charge sheet alteration unsigned – Revisional powers (s.4(2) AJA) – Quashing convictions and ordering retrial.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Tribunal could order vacant possession after pastor’s removal; application by authorized representative and tribunal had jurisdiction.
Land law – eviction/recovery of possession after termination of residence; jurisdiction of District Land and Housing Tribunal versus labour jurisdiction; competence of applications signed by representatives; pecuniary jurisdiction under s.33(2)(a) Cap.216; admissibility of witness testimony.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Failure to consider mitigating factors and self-defence evidence justified reducing an eight-year manslaughter sentence to immediate release.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – Sentencing principles – requirement to consider mitigating factors individually; provocation and self-defence as mitigating circumstances; appellate interference where sentence is excessive.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Appellant's conviction for drug trafficking upheld; chain of custody and procedural omissions not fatal, sentence varied to run from conviction date.
Criminal law — Narcotic drugs — Proof of trafficking — credibility of eye‑witnesses at scene and supporting documentary exhibits; chain of custody — requirements and when alleged gaps are fatal; admissibility of search certificate — s.38(2) CPA and curable omissions under s.388; weight discrepancies — deference to expert chemist analysis; sentencing — commencement of custodial term to run from conviction date.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction to extend time after appeal transferred and determined by a subordinate court with extended jurisdiction.
Appellate jurisdiction – transfer of appeal to subordinate court with extended jurisdiction – effect of transfer; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.11(1) – power of subordinate court with extended jurisdiction to extend time; Court of Appeal revisional powers s.4(2) AJA – nullification of High Court order; Competency of appeal – requirement of valid notice of appeal.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Where an appeal has been transferred, extension of time must be sought from the subordinate court that heard it; High Court’s extension was invalid.
Appellate procedure — transfer under Magistrates Courts Act s45(2) — subordinate court exercising extended jurisdiction deemed to sit as High Court — power to extend time under Appellate Jurisdiction Act s11(1) — High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant extension after transfer — revisional jurisdiction under AJA s4(2) to nullify void orders — notice of appeal Rule 68(1) — incompetence and striking out of appeal.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
A High Court may not extend time to appeal once the matter has been transferred to a subordinate court exercising extended jurisdiction.
* Appellate jurisdiction – transfer of appeal to subordinate court with extended jurisdiction – effect of transfer on High Court’s residual powers. * Extension of time – section 11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – subordinate court with extended jurisdiction empowered to extend time. * Competency of appeal – rule 68(1) TANZ. Ct. of Appeal Rules – notice of appeal institutes appeal. * Revisional powers – section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – nullification of invalid High Court order.
|
13 December 2018 |
|
Applicant improperly sought revision instead of appealing High Court's refusal of leave under section 47(1); application struck out.
* Land law – section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act – exclusive High Court jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal in land matters. * Appellate procedure – revisional jurisdiction under section 4(3) AJA is not an alternative to appeal where a right of appeal exists. * Procedure – omnibus applications for leave to appeal against more than one decision are incompetent unless matters consolidated. * Procedural fairness – denial of rehearing does not cure the requirement to pursue statutory appeal remedy.
|
12 December 2018 |
|
Failure to obtain and read assessors' written opinions before judgment vitiates tribunal proceedings, requiring nullification and rehearing.
Land Disputes Courts Act s.23(1)–(2); Regulation 19(2) Land Disputes Courts Regulations 2003; assessors’ participation — written opinions to be on record and read to parties; failure to obtain/read opinions is fatal irregularity; nullification and rehearing ordered.
|
12 December 2018 |