|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2019 |
|
|
Respondents' failure to serve the applicant with the application for copies barred tolling; their notice of appeal was deemed withdrawn.
Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — Rule 90(1) time limit to institute appeal — proviso excluding time for applications for copies — Rule 90(2) requirement to serve written application on respondent — failure to prove service — Rule 91(a) deemed withdrawal of notice of appeal — costs awarded.
|
25 March 2019 |
|
Failure to serve the written application for High Court proceedings prevents reliance on the Rule 90(1) exception, so the notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn.
Appeal procedure — Rule 90(1) sixty-day limit — proviso for time excluded where copies sought — Rule 90(2) requirement to serve written application for copies — failure to prove service — Rule 91(a) deemed withdrawal — pending leave does not excuse non-compliance.
|
25 March 2019 |
|
Extension of time granted where counsel’s change of office justified failure to serve the notice of appeal.
Civil procedure – extension of time – good cause required to extend time to serve notice of appeal and lodge appeal; Service – failed service excused where advocate changed office and could not be traced; Omnibus applications – related prayers may be combined absent law prohibiting same; Appellate Jurisdiction – section 3A and focus on substantive justice.
|
21 March 2019 |
|
Award for loss of use set aside for lack of proof; counterclaim dismissed for failure to substantiate special damages.
Civil procedure — Change of trial judge — Order XVIII Rule 10 — Successor judge need not assign reasons where trial had not commenced (only mediation occurred). Evidence — Special (specific) damages — Must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; award for loss of use set aside where unproven. Land law — Ownership disputes — Documentary proof (title, sale agreement, building permit, search report) essential to substantiate purchase and development claims. Appeals — Counterclaim dismissal upheld where appellant failed to produce requisite documentary evidence for special damages.
|
21 March 2019 |
|
Successor judge’s taking over was proper; respondent failed to prove Tshs.2,000,000/= special damages, appeal otherwise dismissed.
Civil procedure – Order XVIII Rule 10(1)-(2) – successor judge taking over before trial has begun – no requirement to assign reasons. Land law – ownership dispute – assessment of documentary and oral evidence to declare lawful owner and order vacant possession. Damages – special (specific) damages must be strictly pleaded and proved – award for loss of use struck down for lack of proof. Evidence – non-objection to exhibits is probative but not conclusive; weight assessed in context of all evidence. Proof of title/search – claimant must tender search report or documentary proof to rely on title/search findings.
|
21 March 2019 |
|
|
19 March 2019 |
|
Applicant's inconsistent evidence and failure to pursue available remedy meant no extension of time or revision was warranted.
Civil procedure — extension of time to appeal — condonation — sufficiency and credibility of reasons for delay — ex‑parte judgments — remedy to set aside ex‑parte decision vs. appeal — revision under s.4(3) AJA.
|
18 March 2019 |
|
An encumbered collateral in the respondent’s possession may suffice as security for a stay if its value adequately covers the decretal sum.
Court of Appeal — stay of execution — Rule 11(2)(d) Court of Appeal Rules — cumulative conditions: substantial loss, promptness, security — adequacy of security — encumbered collateral in respondent's possession may suffice if not subject to litigation and value covers decretal sum — form of security immaterial if adequate.
|
15 March 2019 |
|
An encumbered (mortgaged) property cannot serve as security for stay of execution; an independent bank guarantee is appropriate.
Stay of execution – rule 11(5)(c) Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to give security for due performance; Mortgaged/encumbered property cannot be good security; Need to disclose mortgage instrument terms and current valuation; Firm undertaking to procure independent security may suffice; Bank guarantee appropriate form of security.
|
15 March 2019 |
|
Applicant’s preliminary objection filed under wrong rule was incompetent and struck out; each party to bear own costs.
Court of Appeal rules – preliminary objection – applicant vs respondent – Rule 107(1) applicable only to respondents in appeals – Rule 4(2)(a) as enabling provision for applicants – wrong citation renders objection incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
12 March 2019 |
|
Failure to serve the respondent with a written application for High Court copies precluded time exclusion under Rule 90 and the appeal was struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeal competency – Rule 90(1) & (2) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – application for copies of High Court proceedings must be written and served on respondent – failure to serve precludes time exclusion – appeal struck out as time-barred.
|
12 March 2019 |
|
A single High Court judge lacked jurisdiction to determine an Industrial Court appeal; matter remitted to a full bench.
Industrial Court appeals — jurisdiction — requirement for High Court full bench to hear appeals from Industrial Court; Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No.11 of 2003 — preliminary objections on time‑bar and notice — competence of appeal — remedy: quash and remit to full bench.
|
12 March 2019 |
|
The applicant must file witness statements within seven days after mediation; limited extension may be granted for good cause.
Commercial Court Rules r.49(1)-(2) – evidence-in-chief by witness statements – mandatory seven-day filing after failed mediation. Interpretation of Laws Act s.53(2) – "shall" denotes mandatory compliance. Extension of time – applicant must show good cause; awaiting framing of issues is not sufficient, distance may suffice on facts. Construction – no conflict between r.49(2) and rr.50(1) & 56; distinct procedural functions. Procedural fairness – trial judge should not proceed to merits while interlocutory application still pending.
|
11 March 2019 |
|
A signed letter of lien created a continuing, co‑extensive guarantee permitting the bank to uplift the guarantor’s renewed FDR without notice.
Banking law – letter of lien – continuing guarantee; guarantor’s liability co‑extensive with principal debtor; uplift of fixed deposit receipt as security; necessity (or not) of embedding lien in loan agreement; renewal/renumbering of FDR does not nullify lien where not discharged.
|
8 March 2019 |
|
A signed letter of lien created a continuing, co‑extensive guarantee permitting the bank to uplift the pledged fixed deposit.
Banking law – letter of lien – guarantee – continuing/co‑extensive liability of guarantor; right of bank to uplift pledged fixed deposit on default without prior notice; effect of renewal/re‑referencing of fixed deposit; requirement (or not) for lien to be in loan agreement or mortgage deed.
|
8 March 2019 |
|
Successor‑Judge s299(1) omission cured by lack of prejudice; assessors’ clarifications and clinical officer post‑mortem admissible; murder conviction upheld.
Criminal procedure — successor Judge duties under section 299(1) CPA — omission non‑fatal where no prejudice and accused represented; Evidence Act — assessors’ questions (s177) must be clarificatory, not cross‑examination (s155); Forensic evidence — clinical officer competent to conduct post‑mortem; Appellate review — substantive justice (s3A AJA) and evaluation of malice aforethought factors.
|
6 March 2019 |
|
Court upheld murder conviction and death sentence, finding procedural irregularities non‑prejudicial and evidence proved malice aforethought.
Criminal law — successor Judge’s duty under s.299 CPA; assessors’ questions vs. cross‑examination (s.177 Evidence Act); admissibility and competency of clinical officer’s post‑mortem evidence; proof of malice aforethought (Enock Kipela factors); substantive‑justice approach under s.3A AJA.
|
6 March 2019 |
|
Registrar’s delay in supplying full proceedings justified extension of time to the respondent to apply for revision.
Court of Appeal — reference under Rule 62(1)(b) — extension of time to apply for revision — discretion of single Judge — interference only where decision plainly wrong or misdirected; supply of proceedings by Registrar — delay and omission of drawn order can constitute good cause for condonation; issues not raised before single Judge cannot be raised on reference.
|
6 March 2019 |
|
Review dismissed where applicant failed to particularize manifest error, perjury or that the judgment was a nullity.
Review – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 66(1) – requirements for review; manifest error on face of record; allegations of perjury/fraud must be particularized; review is not an appeal; dismissal for failure to state grounds.
|
5 March 2019 |
|
Court corrected omission on reliefs, ordered CMA monetary entitlements and limited quashing to disciplinary committee proceedings.
Labour law – unfair termination – right to be heard – remedies under s.40(1) ELRA (reinstatement, re‑engagement, compensation) – appellate review for errors apparent on face of the record – appropriateness of reinstatement after prolonged delay – quashing disciplinary proceedings only.
|
5 March 2019 |
|
Notice of appeal struck out where respondent failed to institute appeal within prescribed time; overriding objective cannot cure such default.
Appeal procedure — Rule 89(2) — striking out notice of appeal for failure to take essential step; Rule 90(1) and (2) — time limits for lodging record and exceptions; service of process — sufficiency of acknowledgment and rubber stamp; overriding objective (s.3A/3B AJA) cannot cure non-compliance with mandatory procedural rules.
|
5 March 2019 |
|
Notice of appeal struck out for failure to institute appeal within prescribed time; overriding objective cannot cure egregious default.
Appeals — striking out notice of appeal — Rule 89(2) — failure to take essential steps/timeliness. Appeals — Rule 90(1) & (2) — lodging record and memorandum of appeal; requesting and serving copy of proceedings. Civil procedure — service of documents — rubber stamp/signature as proof of service. Procedure — overriding objective cannot cure egregious default or circumvent mandatory rules.
|
5 March 2019 |
|
Appeal dismissed; charge error curable, police statements not mandatory, child witnesses competent, life sentence for offence against under-18 restored.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence – conviction based on child witness evidence and medical report – corroboration and production of police-recorded statements under s.166 Evidence Act. Criminal procedure – Medical report and accused’s right under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – medical officer's oral testimony renders complaint moot. Criminal procedure – Competence of child witnesses – voire dire under s.127(2) Evidence Act. Sentencing – Offence against a person under eighteen – mandatory life imprisonment (Law of the Child Act amendment).
|
5 March 2019 |
|
A defective omission of the sentencing subsection is curable if particulars and evidence gave clear notice and no miscarriage occurred.
Criminal law – Rape of a child – Identification and corroboration – Evidence of victim, eyewitness and medical examiner; Criminal procedure – Charge particulars – omission of specific sentencing subsection (s.131(3) Penal Code) – curable defect under s.388 CPA where no prejudice; Appellate review – defects considered case‑by‑case; inadmissibility of raising issues not advanced on earlier appeal.
|
5 March 2019 |
|
The applicant obtained a stay of execution pending appeal, conditional on depositing a bank guarantee for the decretal sum.
Civil procedure — stay of execution pending appeal — requirements under Rule 11(3),(5) and (7) of the Court of Appeal Rules (substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, security). Security for stay — firm undertaking/bank guarantee may suffice; court may prescribe form and timeline. Appeal procedure — timeliness of stay application and conditional stays.
|
5 March 2019 |
|
Successor judge's omission under s299 CPA non‑fatal absent prejudice; assessors' clarifications harmless; clinical officer post‑mortem admissible; murder conviction upheld.
Criminal procedure – successor Judge’s duty under s299(1) CPA; Assessors’ questions – s177 TEA; Admissibility and competency of post‑mortem evidence by a clinical officer; Treatment of unsworn witness evidence; Proof of malice aforethought (weapons, force, wounds, location, multiplicity of blows).
|
4 March 2019 |
|
Court reduced attempted murder sentence from 15 to 10 years for failure to adequately weigh mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Attempted murder – Sentencing – Guilty plea and first offender status as mitigating factors – Remand custody credit – Extraneous considerations in sentencing – Appellate interference where sentence manifestly excessive.
|
4 March 2019 |
|
Appeal struck out because it was prosecuted against all original claimants, including those not determined by the tribunal.
Civil procedure – appeal competence – inclusion of parties not determined by the tribunal – improperly constituted appeal – striking out defective appeal; labour disputes – collective claims identification by CMA.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
High Court has discretion under section 362(1) CPA to proceed without prior typed proceedings; appeal dismissed and remitted.
Criminal procedure – Appeal – s.362(1) Criminal Procedure Act – requirement that petition be accompanied by proceedings/judgment – High Court discretion to order otherwise; 'shall' construed as permissive in context of s.388. Compliance with s.365(1) – notice and supply of proceedings. Right to fair hearing – adequate opportunity to be heard; no abuse of discretion. Preliminary objection – improper where it seeks to challenge legitimate judicial discretion.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
Acquittal upheld where prosecution evidence was contradictory, delayed and insufficient to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Rape – proof beyond reasonable doubt – contradictions in witness statements and delayed reporting affecting credibility. Medical evidence (PF3) – probative value reduced where examination and completion are delayed. Appellate review – restraint in disturbing concurrent factual findings unless there is misapprehension of evidence.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
Acquittal upheld where contradictory testimony, delayed reporting and unreliable PF3 undermined prosecution's rape case.
Criminal law – Rape – proof beyond reasonable doubt – contradictions in witness statements and complainant's conduct undermining credibility. Criminal procedure – Second appeal – reluctance to disturb concurrent factual findings unless there is misapprehension of evidence. Evidence – PF3/medical report – delay in examination and late completion reduce evidential weight. Evidence – delay in reporting and inconsistencies among witnesses as factors to be resolved in favour of accused.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
Court upheld conviction, finding identification reliable and summing-up to assessors proper; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – murder – visual identification – reliance only where mistaken identity reasonably excluded (Waziri Amani principles). Criminal procedure – summing up to assessors – required directions on identification and alibi; assessors need not be informed of preliminary hearing proceedings. Evidence – relatives as witnesses – admissible; weight depends on credibility, relevance and legal obtainment of evidence. Evidence Act, s.143 – no fixed number of witnesses required; credibility is determinative.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
An applicant must satisfy all three Rule 11(2)(d) conditions; delay and lack of security lead to dismissal.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Rule 11(2)(d) Court of Appeal Rules – Mandatory cumulative conditions: substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security – Delay and failure to furnish security justify dismissal.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
Court affirms registered title, upholds trespass finding, and dismisses counterclaim; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – ownership by registered Certificate of Title – validity of title after government re-survey and transfer; re-survey procedure – involvement of neighbours not mandatory; trespass – entitlement to general damages; no cause of action against local authority where re-survey conducted by other government bodies; counterclaim fails for lack of proof of ownership.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
Applicant’s prompt withdrawal of a defective review and indication of manifest error justified granting an extension to file review.
Court of Appeal — extension of time under Rule 10 — good cause requires promptness and adequate explanation; Rule 66(1) — review grounds must be indicated; manifest error on the face of the record (Rule 66(1)(a)); withdrawal of timely but defective review and prompt subsequent application supports extension; prisoner’s status and diligence relevant.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
Pre-defence judicial remark complied with s.293(2); voluntary intoxication did not negate intent—appeal dismissed.
Criminal procedure s.293(2) CPA requirement to inform accused of rights at close of prosecution and whether such remarks amount to pre-conviction. Criminal law intoxication (s.14 Penal Code) voluntary intoxication generally no defence; exceptions and incapacity. Murder malice aforethought and causation inference from words, weapon, conduct and autopsy findings. Right to fair trial prejudice from judicial remarks and proper exercise of s.293(2) safeguards.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
Review application dismissed for failing to particularize Rule 66(1) grounds; re-assessment of evidence is not reviewable.
Review of Court of Appeal judgment – Rule 66(1) requirements – manifest error on face of record, nullity, perjury – need for particularisation – re-assessment of evidence is not a ground for review.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
Appellant's rape conviction quashed due to improperly admitted PF3 and material inconsistencies undermining the victim's evidence.
Criminal law – Rape – Victim’s testimony as central evidence – Need to prove penetration and lack of consent; Medical evidence (PF3) – admissibility and requirement to call doctor under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – Improperly admitted PF3 to be expunged; Witness credibility – importance of coherence, consistency and demeanour – appellate assessment of contradictions; Conviction unsafe where crucial evidence is inconsistent or improperly admitted.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
Unexplained failure to call a material witness and lack of corroboration rendered the rape conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Rape – unsworn child evidence requires corroboration; medical evidence expunged for non-compliance with s.240(3) CPA; prosecution's duty to call material witnesses – adverse inference where unexplained non-production; second appeal – disturbing concurrent findings where conviction is unsafe.
|
1 March 2019 |
|
|
1 March 2019 |