|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| May 2019 |
|
|
Failure to specify statutory subsection, punishment and lack of consent rendered the rape conviction and proceedings a nullity.
Criminal procedure – charge sheet defects – necessity to cite correct statutory subsection(s) and punishment – rape – proof of penetration and absence of consent – limits of section 388(1) CPA cure – revisional powers under section 4(2) AJA – PF3 admissibility and evidential sufficiency.
|
30 May 2019 |
|
An ex parte interim stay of execution was granted where the applicant undertook to furnish security and the respondent did not appear.
Court of Appeal – ex parte interim stay of execution – Rules 11 and 48 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – undertaking to furnish security – no order as to costs where application prosecuted ex parte.
|
30 May 2019 |
|
A charge alleging a non-existent statutory offence is incurably defective, nullifying trial and appeal and requiring release.
Criminal procedure – Contents of charge – Statutory requirement to state specific offence and reference to creating section (Criminal Procedure Act ss.132, 135(a)(i)). Criminal law – Defective charge – A charge alleging a non-existent offence is incurably defective and renders trial a nullity
Remedy – Where the charge is non-existent/ incurably defective, conviction and sentence must be quashed and retrial may be inappropriate. Evidence/identification issues and other grounds need not be decided where charge is fatally defective
|
29 May 2019 |
|
Appeal quashed and conviction set aside where missing trial record prevented fair adjudication; appellant ordered released.
Criminal procedure – Missing trial record – Appeal cannot be properly decided without trial proceedings and evidence. Constitutional right – Fair hearing (Article 13(6)(a)) – entitlement to a full opportunity to be heard before judgment. Appellate jurisdiction – Section 4(2) AJA – exercise of revisional powers to nullify proceedings and quash conviction where record is irretrievable
Remedy – Order of release where retrial is unjust and appellant has served substantial time
|
29 May 2019 |
|
An extension to seek review requires both good cause and identification of the Rule 66(1) ground(s) intended to be relied upon.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to apply for review under Rule 10 – applicant must show good cause and specify intended grounds under Rule 66(1)(a)–(e); prison transfer as alleged cause of delay requires evidential support; 'counter affidavit' v. 'affidavit in reply' is mere nomenclature.
|
29 May 2019 |
|
A suit against a specified public corporation without court leave is a nullity; appeal allowed and judgment quashed.
Public Corporations Act – specified public corporation – GN No. 543/1997 – PSRC as official receiver – Bankruptcy Ordinance applies – requirement of leave to sue a specified corporation; Lack of jurisdiction where suit instituted against specified corporation without leave – proceedings and judgment nullity; Appellate revision under section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to quash proceedings and set aside orders.
|
29 May 2019 |
|
Extension of time for review requires proof of good cause and stated rule 66(1) grounds; non‑opposition insufficient.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to apply for review – requirement to show good cause under rule 10 and that intended review will rely on one or more grounds in rule 66(1)(a)–(e) – respondent’s non‑opposition not decisive.
|
29 May 2019 |
|
Failure to explain each day of delay (c.66 days) bars extension of time to appeal despite demonstrated diligence.
Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — requirement to show good cause — duty to account for each day of delay. Technical delay doctrine (Fortunatus Masha) — applicability only where original appeal was struck out by court, not where delay arises from counsel's conduct or omissions. Diligence in pursuing appeal — relevant but insufficient without satisfactory explanation of delay
|
29 May 2019 |
|
An illegality apparent on the record (possible denial of hearing) can justify extension of time despite unexplained delay.
Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — Requirement to account for delay and length — Illegality apparent on face of record may constitute good cause — Right to be heard — Withdrawal of counsel; dismissal for non-appearance — Restoration of appeal.
|
29 May 2019 |
|
Court vacated its earlier judgment and ordered rehearing after finding parties were not heard on a suo motu decisive issue.
Constitutional remedies – Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, s.4 – scope of relief and interaction with criminal proceedings; s.8(2) – exhaustion of other remedies. Civil v criminal regimes – whether a civil petition can nullify pending criminal prosecutions. Media publicity – justiciability of prejudicial publications affecting fair trial rights. Procedural fairness – Court deciding a decisive issue suo motu without reopening hearing amounts to denial of opportunity to be heard and is reviewable
|
28 May 2019 |
|
Court vacated its judgment for deciding a new, unargued point without hearing parties and ordered a rehearing.
Judgment review — Rule 66 — manifest error on face of record versus error of law; right to be heard — Court raising and deciding a new issue suo motu requires reopening hearing; Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (s.4 and s.8(2)) — section 4 remedies subject to exhaustion of other available remedies; civil remedies v. criminal proceedings — whether civil court can nullify ongoing criminal trials.
|
28 May 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or apparent illegality; extension to file revision refused with costs.
Civil procedure — Extension of time (Rule 10 CA Rules) — Good cause required — Applicant must account for each day of delay; mere allegations of illegality constitute good cause only if illegality is apparent on the face of the record — Impugned order/record must be produced to verify alleged illegality.
|
27 May 2019 |
|
Ex parte interim stay of execution granted pending inter partes hearing, subject to applicant’s undertaking to provide security.
Ex parte interim stay of execution – power to grant stay pending inter partes hearing – applicant’s undertaking to furnish security – effect of ex parte prosecution on costs (Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, rr.11(3)–(7), 48(1)).
|
27 May 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for extension of time to seek stay of execution; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure — extension of time (Rule 10) — good cause must be shown: consider length of delay, reasons, arguable/ apparent illegality and prejudice
Execution — stay of execution — vacatur of prior adjournment by successor Registrar does not automatically constitute apparent illegality warranting extension
Diligence — negligence and inaction undermine applications for enlargement of time
|
27 May 2019 |
|
A jurisdictional/time‑bar objection under the ELRA is premature as a preliminary point and the extension‑time application may proceed to merits.
Court of Appeal — extension of time (Rule 10) — application to review its own decision (s.4(4) AJA) — preliminary objections — jurisdictional/time‑bar point premature at interlocutory stage — Mukisa Biscuit principle on pure points of law — Rule 66(1)(d).
|
27 May 2019 |
|
Alleged illegality in a High Court dismissal can justify extension of time to file revision despite counsel's delay.
Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — Lyamuya factors: account for delay, diligence, inordinate delay, point of law/illegality.* Commercial Division procedure — Failure to file witness statements — Whether dismissal is lawful where rules do not clearly supply sanction.* Exercise of discretion — Alleged illegality can constitute sufficient cause to extend time despite some negligence.
|
24 May 2019 |
|
Alleged illegality in a trial court ruling can justify extension of time to apply for revision despite some delay.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirements for good cause (Lyamuya guidelines). Illegality of impugned decision – failure to file witness statements and dismissal for want of prosecution – illegality as sufficient ground for extension. Appeal struck out for incomplete record – diligence and negligence in prosecuting remedies
|
24 May 2019 |
|
|
24 May 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or account for delay; extension to file review refused with costs.
Extension of time — Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules — applicant must account for each day of delay; delay of 37 days unexplained — failure to produce affidavit from advocate to explain non-appearance — alleged illegality (ex parte hearing) unsubstantiated — application dismissed with costs.
|
22 May 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or account for delay; extension to file review denied with costs.
Extension of time — requirement to account for each day of delay — diligence — allegation of denial of hearing must be substantiated by affidavit evidence from the absent advocate — illegality must be shown to be manifest to justify extension.
|
22 May 2019 |
|
Applicants failed to show good cause for extension to file review application; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure — Extension of time to file review application — Applicant must state grounds in Notice of Motion or affidavit; Court will not accept grounds raised only in written submissions; ignorance of law or reliance on unreported decisions is insufficient; factors for consideration: length of delay, reasons, arguable illegality, prejudice.
|
22 May 2019 |
|
Extension to file review dismissed because the applicant failed to show good cause and specify intended Rule 66 review grounds.
Civil procedure — Extension of time (Rule 10) — "Good cause" requirement — incarcerated or lay applicants' status relevant but not sufficient alone to grant extension. Review procedure — Rule 66(1)(a)-(e) — applicant for extension must show intended review grounds at extension stage. Affidavit requirements — must set out grounds and attach impugned decision or explain miscarriage of justice. Case law — Osward Masatu Mwizarubi; Elia Anderson applied
|
22 May 2019 |
|
Court allowed amendment of a misnumbered, partially unverified affidavit and overruled the preliminary objection instead of striking out the application.
Civil procedure — Affidavit — verification clause — importance for genuineness and deponent's responsibility Civil procedure — Amendment of affidavits — court's discretion to allow curing defects even after preliminary objection Civil procedure — Overriding objective — procedural compliance must be balanced with justice; minor defects not necessarily fatal Affidavit formality — misnumbering and partial non-verification may be cured rather than cause striking out
|
22 May 2019 |
|
Court allowed amendment of a mis-numbered, partly unverified affidavit and overruled the preliminary objection.
Procedure — Affidavits — Verification clause; Court’s discretion to allow amendment of defective affidavits even after preliminary objection; Overriding objective permits curing procedural defects.
|
22 May 2019 |
|
Failure to deposit ordered security and lack of proper service rendered proceedings null; retrial ordered.
Civil procedure – security for costs (Order XXV rules 1–3) – failure to furnish within fixed time affects competence of suit; dismissal mandatory unless withdrawn – extension/restoration requires compliance with sub-rule (3) (notice to defendants)
Service – service by publication – proof required before proceeding ex parte; defendants condemned unheard violates right to be heard (Article 13(6)(a))
|
21 May 2019 |
|
Prisoner failed to show good cause or arguable review grounds; extension of time to lodge review application refused.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules — applicant must show good cause; bare assertions of prison delay insufficient without supporting evidence
Review — Rule 66(1)(a) — requires manifest error on the face of the record resulting in miscarriage of justice; applicant must demonstrate an arguable case at extension stage. Prisoners and litigation — reliance on prison authorities for documents requires corroboration (e.g., affidavit) to account for delay. Appeal vs Review — defects in charge sheet and sentence severity are ordinarily matters for appeal, not review
|
21 May 2019 |
|
Revision allowed where unresolved dispute over applicant’s authorised representative made appeal infeasible.
Civil procedure – Revision v
Appeal – Whether revision is incompetent where a right of appeal exists – Revision permissible where appeal right is blocked or good cause shown; Representation – Court’s failure to determine authorised legal representative can justify resort to revision; Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Appealability of consent orders under section 5(2)(a)
|
21 May 2019 |
|
Omission to state reasons by successor judge was not fatal; confessions and DNA corroboration sustained the appellants' convictions.
Criminal procedure – Successor judge taking over trial – obligation to inform accused of right to recall witnesses under s.299(1) – failure to state reasons not automatically fatal where no prejudice shown and overriding objective applies
Confessions – cautioned statements taken outside four-hour rule (s.50(1)) – applicability of s.50(2) exceptions and discretionary admission where confession leads to discovery. Extra-judicial statements – voluntariness assessed by trial-within-a-trial. Oral confession – admissible if voluntary even when made in presence of police and civilians
Proof – confessions, discovery and DNA corroboration can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt
|
21 May 2019 |
|
Delay caused by late supply of trial proceedings may constitute good cause for extension to file omitted pages.
Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – good cause required for extension – delay caused by late supply of trial court proceedings can constitute good cause. Records and appeals – omission of pages from record – inclusion upon grant of extension where applicant acts promptly and respondents not prejudiced
|
21 May 2019 |
|
Court quashed conviction and ordered release where trial proceedings were missing, making fair retrial impossible.
Criminal appeal – robbery with violence; missing trial proceedings and record of evidence; right to fair hearing (Article 13(6)(a)); appellate court erred in deciding appeal without trial record; revisional powers – section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act invoked; proceedings and judgments nullified; conviction and sentence quashed; immediate release ordered where retrial impossible.
|
20 May 2019 |
|
Extension of time granted where prior timely application, bereavement and professional duties explained a 19‑day non‑inordinate delay.
Civil procedure — extension of time to apply for stay of execution; good cause requires diligence and non‑inordinate delay; previous prosecution of remedy may constitute good cause; requirement to account for each day of delay; prejudice to opposite party to be shown before refusing extension.
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Court granted extension to file stay application, accepting bereavement and prior diligence as good cause.
Extension of time — good cause — prior prosecution of an application as proof of diligence; bereavement and professional commitments as explanation for delay; obligation to account for each day of delay — not strictly mechanical; prejudice to respondent — must be shown.
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Extension to file review dismissed for failing to show Rule 66(1) grounds despite delay in receiving judgment.
Criminal procedure – extension of time – application to extend time to file review – Rule 10, Court of Appeal Rules. Review proceedings – requirement at extension stage to show proposed review will rely on grounds in Rule 66(1)(a)–(e). Extension of time – Lyamuya factors (account for delay, absence of inordinate delay, diligence, other sufficient reasons) – not alone sufficient for review applications. Delay attributable to late supply of judgment to prisoner – relevant but insufficient without stated grounds for review
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Short unexplained delay and an unsupported bereavement claim by counsel did not constitute good cause for extension of time.
Civil procedure – extension of time under Rule 10 – good cause – length and reasons for delay – adequacy of affidavit evidence – unsupported bereavement excuse – negligence of counsel not to be condoned.
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Alleged bereavement of counsel, unsupported by particulars or proof, did not constitute good cause for extension of time.
Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirement of good cause; factors: length of delay, reasons, prejudice, diligence, arguable point of law; bereavement of counsel – unsupported, generalized affidavit insufficient; short delay not automatically dispositive; counsel’s negligence or laxity not good cause.
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Extension denied where vague illness and bereavement claims failed to show good cause and requisite diligence.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules – Requirement to show "good cause" and diligence – Vague claims of chronic illness and bereavement insufficient absent particulars or corroboration; four-factor test (length of delay, reasons, prejudice, prospects) applied.
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Extension refused where counsel failed to show specific, diligent explanation for a 35-day delay.
Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — Good cause requires specific, diligent explanation for each day of delay; illness and bereavement must be particularised — Royal Insurance/Lyamuya factors applied.
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Application for extension of time dismissed for failure to account for delay and absence of apparent illegality in impugned decision.
Court of Appeal — extension of time under Rule 10 — requirement to account for each day of delay — consultations and delayed supply of proceedings not automatic good cause — point of law must show manifest illegality of impugned decision to justify condonation.
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed due to broken chain of custody and inadequate proof of identification and possession.
Criminal appeal; missing record of appeal — Rule 4(2)(b) invoked; fair hearing and availability of complete record; visual identification and proof of possession; competence to tender exhibits; chain of custody; proof beyond reasonable doubt; conviction quashed for evidentiary failures.
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Despite missing record, the appellant's conviction was quashed for failure to prove identification and chain of custody.
Criminal law – appellate procedure where record is incomplete – invocation of Rule 4(2)(b) Court of Appeal Rules; Evidence – visual identification and proof of ownership – need for description and prior possession; Evidence – chain of custody and competence to tender exhibits; Appellate review – re-evaluation permitted where misdirections or nondirections exist.
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Second appellate court dismisses appeal; cannot re‑raise expunged cautioned statement or new factual grounds not previously argued.
Criminal law – Rape – Identification and medical evidence – PF3 admissibility; Cautioned statement expunged for delay cannot be re‑challenged on second appeal; Second appeal jurisdiction – Court will not entertain new grounds not raised in first appeal.
|
16 May 2019 |
|
The applicant's conviction for child rape upheld: child's testimony and mother's evidence proved guilt; PF3 expunged.
Criminal law – Rape of a child – Proof of age by parent – Competence and sufficiency of child's testimony (s.127(7) TEA) – PF3 admissibility and requirement to read exhibit aloud – Expunging improperly admitted medical report – Failure to call non-material witnesses not warranting adverse inference – Defence alleged fabrication as afterthought.
|
16 May 2019 |
|
Applicants failed to account for delay and did not show an illegality apparent on the record to justify extension of time.
Civil procedure — extension of time under Rule 45A(1)(b) — requirement to account for each day of delay — sufficiency of cause — illegality as a ground for extension only where apparent on the face of the record (authorities: Bushiri; Lyamuya; Valambhia; VIP Engineering).
|
16 May 2019 |
|
Court allowed curative amendments for unnamed respondents and a typographical notice defect; CMA exhibits need not meet CPC endorsement formalities.
Labour appeals — preliminary objections — party identification — failure to list respondents; admissibility/endorsement of exhibits in CMA proceedings — Mediation and Arbitration Guidelines Rules empower arbitrator to determine procedure; notice of appeal defects — typographical/curable under Rule 111 of the Court of Appeal Rules; discretion to allow amendments to facilitate substantive justice.
|
16 May 2019 |
|
Conviction overturned for material variance in date charged and for failure to consider the accused’s defence.
Criminal law – variance between charge sheet particulars and trial evidence – requirement to prove or amend date under Criminal Procedure Act; Criminal procedure – failure to consider accused’s defence (Lockhart‑Smith principle) – fatal irregularity; Sexual offences – victim testimony and medical evidence issues (corroboration, delay, PF3) raised but rendered academic.
|
16 May 2019 |
|
An application for revision cannot substitute an appeal; seeking extension to file such revision was incompetent and struck out.
Criminal procedure – revision v. appeal – revisional jurisdiction not a substitute for appellate jurisdiction; s.4(2)-(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 65 Court of Appeal Rules. Procedural competency – application for extension of time to file revision incompetent where appeal/review remedies have been exhausted and Court already determined the appeal. Abuse of process – seeking revision to re-open matters already determined on appeal is impermissible
|
16 May 2019 |
|
Material variance between the charged date and witness evidence rendered the charge incurably defective; conviction quashed.
Criminal law – charge particulars – variance between date in charge sheet and date given in evidence – material and fatal defect
Criminal Procedure Act – section 234(1) (amendment of defective charge) and section 234(3) (variance as to time) – s234(3) does not cure discrepancy in pleaded date. Right to fair trial – accused must know particulars of charge to prepare defence – failure to amend charge where variance exists may lead to acquittal. Prosecution concession – respondent's concession that defect was incurable and not resisting appeal
|
16 May 2019 |
|
A material variance between the charge's pleaded date and witness evidence is fatal unless the charge is properly amended.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence – Material variance between date in charge sheet and dates in witness evidence – Whether curable – Interpretation of s.234(3) CPA – s.234(1) CPA empowers amendment but was not invoked – variance fatal; conviction unsafe.
|
16 May 2019 |
|
Applicant permitted to seek revision where unresolved representation dispute made an appeal impracticable.
Civil procedure – Revision vs appeal – Whether revision is competent where right of appeal exists; good and sufficient cause to prefer revision where representation dispute blocks appeal; appealability of consent orders (s.5(2)(a) Appellate Jurisdiction Act); Court of Appeal discretion to reopen hearing; Rule 63(2) – proceeding in absence of duly served respondent.
|
16 May 2019 |
|
Conviction quashed where both lower courts failed to consider the accused's defence and PF3 was not read out.
Criminal law – trial procedure – necessity to consider and evaluate accused's defence – failure to do so vitiates conviction
Evidence – documentary evidence admitted but not read out (PF3) – contents cannot be relied on and must be expunged. Revisionary powers – quashing conviction and setting aside sentence where conviction is unsafe
|
16 May 2019 |