|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2019 |
|
|
The applicant's challenge to an arbitral award failed: no misconduct or error apparent on the award justified setting it aside.
Arbitration — judicial review under Arbitration Act s.16 — limits of review: misconduct, improperly procured awards, or errors apparent on face of award; natural justice (right to be heard) and scope of tribunal's determination; contractual notice by email and meaning of 'writing'; distinction between special and general damages and assessment discretion.
|
27 December 2019 |
|
Prosecution proved manslaughter; eyewitnesses and post‑mortem credible, reduction from murder proper, seven‑year sentence upheld.
* Criminal law – manslaughter – proof beyond reasonable doubt – eyewitness and post‑mortem evidence. * Evidence – competency and credibility of witness (s.127 Evidence Act) – assessment of demeanour and consistency. * Identification – prior acquaintance and lighting. * Criminal procedure – reduction of murder charge to manslaughter where intent is doubtful. * Sentencing – appellate restraint unless sentence manifestly excessive.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Two credible eyewitnesses and post-mortem evidence established the applicant's manslaughter; seven-year sentence upheld.
Criminal law – manslaughter – sufficiency of evidence; assessment of witness competence and credibility (s.127 Evidence Act) – corroboration by two eyewitnesses; reduction of murder charge to manslaughter where intent to kill doubtful; appellate interference with sentence only if manifestly excessive.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to decide eviction of an inherited sitting tenant or the Rent Restriction Board had exclusive jurisdiction.
Landlord and tenant — inherited sitting tenant — recovery of possession; Rent Restriction Decree — exclusive jurisdiction of Rent Restriction Board for recovery of possession and arrears; Civil Procedure Decree, Order X — originating summons limited to specified estate/administration matters; jurisdictional defect — parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent; High Court proceedings nullity for lack of jurisdiction.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Applicants failed to show good cause for extension of time under Rule 10 due to unexplained delays.
Civil procedure – Extension of time under Rule 10 – Good cause required; applicant must account for each day of delay and show diligence; ‘‘technical delay’’ (Fortunatus Masha) limited to prompt applicants whose original appeal became incompetent; prospects of success not decisive at extension stage.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Failure to enter convictions renders the trial judgment a nullity and requires remission for a proper judgment.
* Criminal procedure – Failure to enter conviction – fatal and incurable irregularity – renders judgment a nullity.
* Appellate procedure – Competency of appeal where trial judgment is nullity – appeal should be struck out, not determined on merits.
* Remedy – invocation of s.4(2) AJA to revise/nullify proceedings; remit file to trial court to compose proper judgment under ss.235(1) and 312(2) CPA.
* Subsequent post-appeal entry of conviction or compliance order has no legal effect where original judgment was nullity.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Failure to enter conviction renders the trial judgment a nullity; appeal was incompetent and record must be remitted for proper judgment.
* Criminal procedure — Failure to enter conviction after finding guilt — renders judgment a nullity; appeal from nullity is incompetent.
* Appellate procedure — Where absence of conviction is discovered, appeal should be struck out, not decided on merits then remitted.
* Remedy — Revision under s.4(2) AJA: set aside trial judgment and sentences; quash appellate proceedings arising from nullity; remit record for composition of proper judgment under ss.235(1) and 312(2) CPA.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Misapplication of section 127 for child evidence requires corroboration; absence of corroboration led to quashing of conviction.
* Evidence — Child witness — Section 127 Evidence Act — requirement for a recorded voire dire to admit unsworn evidence; misapplication of section 127 revives need for corroboration. * Evidence — Corroboration — absence of corroborative material where section 127 misapplied renders conviction unsafe. * Procedure — Admission of documentary medical evidence (PF3) — contents must be read in court or may be rendered ineffective.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Conviction based on unsafe visual identification was quashed for failure to eliminate possibility of mistaken identity.
* Criminal law – visual identification – admissibility and reliability of identification evidence – necessity to establish favourable conditions (lighting, distance, duration of observation, prior acquaintance) to exclude mistaken identity.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
A defective Rule 90(1) certificate of delay renders an appeal time‑barred and subject to striking out.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Certificate of delay – Rule 90(1) – Certificate must base excluded period on date of application for certified copies – Certificate based on wrong/non‑existent date invalidates certificate and renders appeal time‑barred – Appeal struck out – Costs each to bear own.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of out‑of‑time appeal to the High Court and awarded costs.
Civil procedure — Appeals — Time limits for appeals from Regional Court to High Court (Item 1, Part I, First Schedule to CPD — 90 days) — Effect of section 92 CPD: mandatory dismissal of appeals filed after prescribed period even if limitation not pleaded — Representation by authorized agent under Rule 4(2)(a) Court of Appeal Rules.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Court granted extension to appeal despite partial delay accounting because apparent illegality on the face of the record constituted good cause.
Court of Appeal jurisdiction — competence of Court to hear extension applications where notice of appeal exists; Extension of time — discretionary, requires accounting for each day of delay; Apparent illegality on face of record may constitute good cause; Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules; Section 11 AJA and Rule 47 procedural commencement.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Extension of time granted due to technical delay by High Court Registry and arguable illegality, appeal to be filed within 60 days.
Extension of time – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 10 – technical delay caused by High Court Registry’s failure to supply appeal records – illegality (jurisdictional defect and denial of hearing) as sufficient ground to grant extension – applicant’s duty to show good cause – no reply affidavit meant applicant’s account stood unchallenged.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Convictions quashed for failure to direct assessors and unreliable identification evidence.
Criminal procedure — summing up to assessors; failure to direct on vital points vitiates trial; Visual identification — requirements (lighting, duration, distance, prior knowledge, consistency with contemporaneous statements); Identification parade — necessity of prior descriptions to police before parade; Retrial discretionary where prosecution evidence is weak.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Prisoner who swears he handed appeal documents to prison officer shows good cause; prison officer affidavit not mandatory.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to lodge appeal – prisoner custody – notice/petition presented to prison officer – whether prisoner must produce prison officer's affidavit – good cause construed widely where delay outside applicant's control.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Prisoners who hand signed notices to prison officers may have inordinate delay excused as 'good cause' when officers fail to transmit them.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time — Appellants in custody who sign and hand notice of appeal to prison officer — Duty of prison officer under s.361(1)(a) and s.363 CPA — 'Good cause' interpreted widely to include delay caused by prison officers — Absence of respondent's contradictory affidavit — High Court's duty to consider parties' submissions before exercising discretion.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
A trial court's failure to consider the appellants' defence is a fatal irregularity warranting quashing of conviction and release.
Criminal procedure – failure to consider defence evidence; right to fair hearing (Article 13(6)(a)); visual identification and eyewitness reliability; sufficiency of evidence; retrial principles – when retrial should not be ordered.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Failure to take essential steps and non-compliance with Rule 90(2) justified striking out the respondent's notice of appeal.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Rule 89(2) CA Rules – striking out notice of appeal where no essential steps taken; Rule 90(2) – requirement to serve application for copies to benefit from time exclusion; limitation of 60 days to institute appeal; insufficiency of unproven personal excuses as justification.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Failure to enter conviction renders a trial judgment a nullity and requires remittal for a properly composed judgment.
* Criminal procedure – mandatory conviction before sentence – section 235(1) CPA; failure to convict is fatal and renders judgment a nullity; appellate procedure where trial judgment is nullity: appeal incompetent and should be struck out, not determined on merits. * Remedy – invoke revisional jurisdiction (s.4(2) AJA) to nullify trial and appellate proceedings emanating from nullity and remit record for proper judgment in compliance with ss.235(1) and 312(2) CPA. * Subsequent mere entry of conviction after appeal lodged is ineffective unless accompanied by a properly composed judgment.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Applicant's dissatisfaction with compensation ruling did not establish a manifest error justifying review under Rule 66(1).
* Civil procedure — Review under Rule 66(1) — Scope limited to manifest error on the face of the record — Not a rehearing or second appeal.
* Administrative law — Revocation of lease and compensation — Claims for unexhausted improvements must be proven; court will not award compensation absent evidence.
* Restitutio ad integrum — Allocation of alternative land does not automatically entail additional monetary compensation unless claim is substantiated.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Whether shareholders may be sued personally for company dividends and profits; court held they may not, applying the company’s separate legal personality.
* Civil procedure – appeal time limits – Rule 90(1) Court of Appeal Rules – effect of certified copy of High Court proceedings and certificates of delay. * Company law – separate legal personality (Salomon v Salomon) – shareholders cannot be personally sued for company dividends or company‑derived profits. * Evidence/pleading – necessity to sue the correct legal person (company) for company rights and remedies.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
DPP's failure to file the statutory notice of intention to appeal rendered the High Court's appeal proceedings null and invalid.
Criminal procedure – Notice of intention to appeal – Section 379(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act – DPP's failure to file notice – Incompetent appeal – High Court proceedings a nullity – Remedy: quash proceedings, set aside conviction and sentence, order release.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Revision application struck out because a statutory right of appeal existed; revision not an alternative absent exceptional circumstances.
* Company law – winding up – right of appeal under Companies Decree s.268(1) – interplay with AJA s.5(1)(c).
* Appellate procedure – revisional jurisdiction under AJA s.4(3) not to be used as alternative to appeal except in exceptional circumstances.
* Civil procedure – competence of revision application where statutory appeal available.
* Evidence – preliminary challenge to foreign-executed affidavits (authentication/notarization) and adequacy of disclosed sources (not decided).
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Driver's trafficking conviction upheld; mechanic's conviction quashed for lack of proof of participation.
Criminal law — Trafficking in narcotic drugs (khat) — Lawful arrest and search; chain of custody requirements for seized drugs; admissibility and weight of forensic analysis; credibility of police witnesses and absence of civilian witnesses; distinction between presence and participation (common intention) — conviction sustained for driver/owner, acquittal for alleged mechanic.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Appeal dismissed: reconstructed record sufficient; identification and conduct proved armed robbery; alibi properly rejected for lack of notice and proof.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – elements: use of weapon/threat to obtain or retain property – proof of amputation not an ingredient of offence. * Criminal procedure – incomplete/missing record – appeal may proceed on reconstructed record if adequate to decide grounds of appeal. * Criminal procedure – charge and plea – substituted charge read and pleaded is sufficient; failure to re-read immediately before trial not fatal absent prejudice. * Evidence – identification and recognition – credibility of locus in quo identification and later recognition at arrest can safely ground conviction notwithstanding omissions as to attire/time. * Defence – alibi – requirement to give prior notice (s.194(4) CPA); belated alibi without particulars or witnesses may be accorded no weight.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Appeal dismissed: Court allowed hearing on reconstructed record and upheld conviction for armed robbery; alibi and procedural complaints failed.
Criminal law – armed robbery – identification and recognition evidence; Procedural law – hearing on reconstructed/incomplete record; Charge particulars and curative provisions (s388 CPA); Alibi notice and proof (s194 CPA); Judgment contents and sentencing (s312 CPA).
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Recording witnesses in reported speech contrary to s210(1)(b) CPA vitiated the trial and appellate proceedings; retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Recording of evidence – Section 210(1)(b) CPA – Evidence must be recorded in narrative (first‑person) form, not reported speech; failure vitiates proceedings; appellate revision under s.4(2) AJA; retrial ordered.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Recording witnesses in reported speech breaches s.210(1)(b) CPA, vitiates proceedings and justifies quashing and retrial.
Criminal procedure — Recording of evidence — Section 210(1)(b) CPA requires witness evidence to be recorded in narrative, not reported speech; failure to do so prejudices parties and vitiates proceedings — Proceedings and derived appellate judgments are nullities — Power under s.4(2) AJA to revise, quash and order retrial.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Trial court's failure to consider the appellant's defence and unrecorded demeanour remarks vitiated the conviction; judgments quashed.
* Criminal procedure – Composition of judgment – Requirement under s.312(1) CPA to state points for determination, decision and reasons – failure to consider defence vitiates judgment.
* Appeals – Duty of first appellate court to re-evaluate entire record of evidence, not confine to grounds of appeal.
* Evidence – Demeanour observations must be recorded during testimony (s.212 CPA); unrecorded demeanour remarks inadmissible in judgment.
* Remedy – Quashing of convictions and remittal for proper judgment where statutory requirements not met.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Failure to consider the accused’s defence in judgment vitiates conviction and requires quashing and remand.
Criminal procedure – Judgment requirements under section 312(1) CPA – duty to consider and weigh the accused’s defence; Appellate duty to re-evaluate entire evidence; Demeanour observations must be recorded during testimony (section 212 CPA); Failure to consider defence vitiates conviction.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Failure to consider the accused's defence in the trial court's judgment vitiated the conviction; judgments quashed and matter remitted.
Criminal procedure – Judgment requirements under section 312(1) CPA – A judgment must state points for determination, decision and reasons and show that material evidence (including defence) was considered; Failure to consider defence vitiates conviction; Appellate court’s duty to re-evaluate entire evidence afresh; Demeanour must be recorded in proceedings (section 212 CPA).
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Sua sponte addition of a new issue without hearing parties vitiates proceedings; a necessary party must be joined.
Civil procedure — Framing of issues — Sua sponte addition of new issue during judgment — Right to be heard — Non‑joinder of necessary party — Order I r.10(2) CPD — Material irregularity vitiating proceedings — Remedy: set aside and remit for addition of necessary party and rehearing.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Revision application withdrawn; applicant ordered to pay costs after failing to prove notice of withdrawal.
* Civil procedure — Revision of High Court probate proceedings — application withdrawn under Rule 58(3) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. * Probate law — alleged procedural irregularities (domicile affidavit, annexing will, citation, ex-parte hearing) — raised but not determined due to withdrawal. * Legal Aid Act 2017 s.31 — legal aid does not automatically preclude costs; costs may be ordered in exceptional circumstances and for conduct causing unnecessary expense. * Costs — failure to produce proof of notice of withdrawal and failure to inform respondent justified ordering costs against applicant.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Failure to specify irreparable loss and to provide security justified dismissal of the stay of execution application.
* Civil procedure — Stay of execution — jurisdiction to stay orders of subordinate courts where notice of appeal is filed; * Rule 11(2)(d) — cumulative requirements: irreparable/substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance; * Security for stay — essential to safeguard judgment creditor and facilitate post-appeal execution; * General allegations of hardship insufficient to demonstrate irreparable loss.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Failure to give a firm undertaking for security under Rule 11(2) is fatal to a stay of execution application.
Stay of execution — Rule 11(2) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — cumulative requirements: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security — oral offer/rejoinder not a firm undertaking — failure to comply fatal to stay application.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
A second‑bite extension requires good cause under Rule 10; ignorance or human error alone is insufficient, but diligence justified extension.
* Civil procedure — Extension of time — Rule 10 (good cause) read with Rule 45A(1)(a) (second‑bite eligibility) — omission cured under Rule 48(1). * 'Good cause' is fact‑specific; human error/ignorance of law alone is insufficient. * Diligent pursuit of appeal (court follow‑ups) can justify extension.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Application for review dismissed: complaint about doctrine of recent possession was an appeal in disguise, not a manifest error.
* Criminal procedure — Review of Court of Appeal decision — Scope limited to grounds in rule 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
* Review vs appeal — Manifest error on face of record (obvious/patent mistake) distinguishes reviewable errors from erroneous views on evidence which are grounds for appeal.
* Doctrine of recent possession — Complaint about application where ownership not established constitutes challenge to findings of fact and is not reviewable.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Unsworn child testimony given without proper voir dire requires corroboration; lack of it vitiated the conviction.
Evidence — Child witness (tender age) — voir dire requirement under section 127 — unsworn evidence — misapplication requires corroboration; PF3 not read out and expunged — conviction quashed for lack of corroboration.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Claims based on company shares and leases cannot be pursued personally against shareholders; appeal allowed and High Court decree set aside.
Civil procedure – time limits and certificates of delay under Rule 90(1) – certified copies of proceedings; Company law – separate legal personality – shareholders not personally liable or proper defendants for company dividends, leases or mesne profits.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
A charge founded on a repealed statute vitiates the trial; proceedings and sentence were nullified and the appellant released.
Criminal law – Charge founded on repealed statute – Repeal by subsequent Act – Effect of repeal and savings – Requirement under section 135(a)(ii) CPA to cite valid statute – Fatal defect vitiating trial – Revisionary powers under section 4(2) AJA – Retrial discretionary where accused already served substantial illegal sentence.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Defective charge particulars and irregular plea-taking rendered the guilty plea equivocal and the armed robbery conviction unsafe.
Criminal procedure — Plea of guilty — When a plea is equivocal or unfinished; defective particulars in charge sheet and prejudice — Cure under section 388(1) CPA depends on absence of prejudice — Proper plea-taking procedure; prosecution to state facts; inadmissibility of seeking further evidence from accused via adjournment to Justice of the Peace — Admitted documents must be read in court; failure may cause miscarriage of justice.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Court quashed armed robbery conviction where plea was equivocal and trial procedure was irregular and prejudicial.
Criminal procedure – plea of guilty – when a plea is equivocal or unfinished – requirement to disclose essential particulars (weapon) in charge sheet – curability under s.388 CPA depends on prejudice – improper adjournment to record confession before a Justice of the Peace – admitted exhibits must be read out in court – cumulative irregularities amounting to miscarriage of justice.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Armed robbery conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove theft and possession/use of knife beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – elements of offence: stealing and use/threat of weapon – requirement that stealing be proved beyond reasonable doubt; proof of possession/use of weapon and proper chain of custody for exhibits; appellate interference with concurrent findings where misapprehension of evidence causes miscarriage of justice.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Appellant proved sale and part-payment; transfer ordered subject to payment of the outstanding TZS 10,000,000 within 60 days.
* Contract formation – sale of land – proof of agreement/execution of deed; offer and acceptance inferred from conduct at advocate's office and signed deed (Exhibit PI).
* Evidence – burden of proof in civil cases under section 110 Evidence Act; claimant must prove contract and fulfillment of obligations on balance of probabilities.
* Credibility – assessment primarily for trial court but appellate re-appraisal permitted under Rule 36(1)(a).
* Pleading – allegations of fraud require particulars (Order VI r.4) and higher proof; departure from pleadings unacceptable.
* Specific performance/transfer – transfer ordered subject to payment of outstanding purchase price within fixed time.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Convictions quashed after court expunged un‑read cautioned and extra‑judicial statements for fatal procedural irregularity.
Evidence — Procedure for documentary exhibits — exhibits must be cleared for admission, admitted, then read out in court; failure is fatal. Confessions and extra‑judicial statements — voluntariness objections must be raised before admission; trial within trial required when properly objected. Magistrates' Courts Act/Government Notice — Ward Executive Officers as Justices of the Peace may record extra‑judicial statements. Narration of documents before admission — may be improper but not necessarily fatal if exhibit ultimately admitted; failure to read admitted exhibits is fatal.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Failure to read admitted cautioned and extra‑judicial statements in court is a fatal irregularity leading to expungement and quashed convictions.
Criminal procedure — Admission of documentary evidence — Cautioned and extra-judicial statements — Requirement to clear, admit, and read exhibits in court — Failure to read admitted exhibits is fatal and causes expungement; Ward Executive Officer authority under GN No. 369/2004 and MCA ss.51,57.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Insufficient night-time identification evidence led to quashing of armed robbery convictions and ordered release.
Criminal law — Visual identification — Sufficiency of evidence as to source and intensity of light — Need to describe assailants to the first person(s) encountered and to police to dispel mistaken identity — Application of Waziri Aman factors and authorities (Issa Mgara, Mohamed Alui, Philipo Rukandiza).
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Convictions quashed where visual identification was unsafe due to inadequate description and unexplained lighting conditions.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Reliability of identification where incident occurred at night – Need to describe source and intensity of light – Requirement to give description at first opportunity and corroboration by first persons encountered – Application of Waziri Aman and related authorities – Convictions quashed for unsafe identification.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Appellant's murder conviction upheld: child witness expunged but confession and discovery evidence proved guilt.
* Evidence — tender‑age witness: voire dire not required after s.127 amendment; witness must promise to tell truth.
* Confession — voluntariness: trial‑within‑trial assessment; section 29 Evidence Act on threats.
* Evidence — no obligation to tender cautioned statement when extra‑judicial confession is admitted.
* Criminal law — murder: malice aforethought may be inferred from nature of injuries, dismemberment and conduct.
* Corroboration — confession leading to discovery of body can support conviction.
|
10 December 2019 |
|
Defective rape charge and weak grievous-harm proof rendered convictions unsafe; child status precluded imprisonment.
Criminal law – defective charge – wrong statutory citation and inadequate particulars (age, consent) – incurable at appellate stage (s.388 CPA) – grievous harm conviction unsafe for lack of particularised evidence – improper admission of voters' register – child sentencing; imprisonment prohibited for children (Law of the Child Act s.119).
|
10 December 2019 |