|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2019 |
|
|
Failure to file required appeal documents within 60 days (without delay certificate) leads to the Notice of Appeal being struck out.
Court of Appeal — Civil appeals — Notice of appeal insufficient alone — Rule 90(1) requires memorandum and record in quintuplicate and security for costs within 60 days — failure to take essential steps — Rule 89(2) strike out — Rule 91(a) deeming withdrawal.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
Notice of appeal struck out for failure to file memorandum, record and security within 60 days; deemed withdrawn under Rule 91(a).
Civil procedure — Appeals — Notice of appeal vs institution of appeal — Rule 90(1): requirement to file memorandum of appeal, record of appeal and security for costs within 60 days — Certificate of delay — Rule 91(a): deemed withdrawal for failure to take essential steps — Rule 89(2): striking out notice for failure to prosecute.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
The appellant's dismissal for an alleged unlawful assembly was unfair; CMA delay and mediator referral did not invalidate the award.
* Labour law – unfair termination – alleged unauthorised assembly/strike – burden to prove unlawful assembly; * Labour procedure – mediation to arbitration referral – no codified procedure; parties' recorded consent sufficient; * Employment and Labour Relations Act s.88(9) – delay in delivering award (beyond 30 days) not automatically fatal absent prejudice.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
Inadequate summing up to assessors rendered the trial a nullity; convictions quashed and retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – trial with assessors – duty of judge to adequately sum up to assessors on vital points of law (s.298(1) CPA) – inadequate summing up renders trial a nullity.
* Criminal law – murder – ingredients of offence and application of doctrine of recent possession – assessors must be directed on these points.
* Evidence – extra-judicial/confessional statements – effect of retracted confessions and necessity to direct assessors on their probative value.
* Appellate relief – nullification of trial, quashing of convictions and sentences, and ordering of retrial before another judge and different assessors.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
Failure to consider the accused’s defence and not reading an admitted PF3 vitiated the conviction.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence; documentary exhibits (PF3) must be read and explained when admitted; courts must objectively consider accused’s defence (including alibi) even if no prior notice given; failure to consider defence vitiates conviction; conviction and sentence quashed; release ordered.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
Court affirmed convictions: cautioned statements admissible, voluntary, and circumstantial evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – circumstantial evidence; admissibility and timing of cautioned statements under sections 50 and 51 CPA; exclusion of transfer time under section 50(2)(a); voluntariness of confessions; relevance of information leading to discovery (s.31 Evidence Act); pre-determination of guilt.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
High Court erred by dismissing extension applications without considering good cause, denying appellants a fair hearing.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to file appeal – section 361(2) CPA – requirement to show good cause; Judicial overreach – predetermining merits of appeals not before the court; Right to fair hearing – Article 13(6)(a) – breach where court fails to consider applicants' reasons; Remedy – nullification of proceedings and order to permit fresh applications; Distinction – striking out v dismissal and respective consequences.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
|
30 September 2019 |
|
Second appeal upheld conviction; defective charge curable, but thirty-year sentence substituted with mandatory life imprisonment.
Criminal law — second appeal — limits on raising new grounds; evidence — child complainant credibility and medical corroboration (PF3); charge sheet defects — omission of statutory subsections curable under s.388 CPA when particulars clear; procedure — timing of charge after arrest not fatal; sentencing — mandatory life imprisonment under s.154(2) where victim under 18.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
Victim's credible identification upheld; rape proved beyond reasonable doubt despite delayed medical report and no identification parade.
* Criminal law – Sexual offences – Rape – Victim as primary witness – identification where victim knew accused – reliability of identification. * Medical evidence – PF3 – delayed examination – evidential value not decisive; medical proof not indispensable. * Identification parade unnecessary where victim knew suspect prior to offence.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
Illiterate maker's s34B statement expunged, but conviction upheld on remaining admissible confessional evidence.
* Evidence Act s.34B – admissibility of written statements where maker is not called – cumulative compliance with s.34B(2)(a)-(f) and special requirement for illiterate makers.
* Extra-judicial confessions – voluntariness and timing – no strict statutory time limit; voluntariness is determinative; Chief Justice’s instructions to Justices of the Peace must be observed.
* Cautioned statements – improperly witnessed cautioned statements may be rejected and, if expressly discarded by trial judge, do not necessarily infect the conviction.
* Appellate review – late objections to admissibility not raised at trial are ordinarily untenable, but courts will correct clear statutory non-compliance on first appeal.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
Failure to record the child's statutory promise vitiates her testimony, but corroborative evidence can still sustain conviction.
* Evidence Act s.127(2) (as amended) – child of tender age must promise to tell the truth; omission is fatal. * Rape – medical/ PF3 evidence persuasive but not binding; victim’s oral evidence primary. * Admissibility of cautioned statement – voluntariness and reading in court. * Corroboration – admission to independent witnesses can corroborate confession and sustain conviction. * Appeal procedure – new grounds not raised in first appeal ordinarily not entertained.
|
30 September 2019 |
|
Review application dismissed for lack of manifest error; applicant failed to substantiate service with affidavit, appeal remained time-barred.
* Civil procedure – Review jurisdiction under Rule 66(1)(a) – manifest error on the face of the record required to be obvious and self-evident.
* Service of documents – party relying on service must produce affidavit of material witness who received the documents.
* Review vs appeal – factual disputes and re-examination of credibility cannot be resolved by review; would amount to appeal in disguise.
* Time bar – failure to comply with mandatory service requirements can render an appeal hopelessly out of time.
|
27 September 2019 |
|
Failure to consider the appellant's defence rendered the conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and appellant released.
Criminal law – evaluation of evidence – duty of trial and first appellate courts to consider defence evidence – failure to weigh defence vitiates conviction; mental fitness to stand trial; evidence sufficiency and identification issues.
|
27 September 2019 |
|
Appellant's constitutional right to be present and heard on appeal was breached; appellate proceedings nullified and remitted for rehearing.
* Criminal law – Appeal – Right to be heard – Article 13(6)(a) Constitution – Determination of appeal in appellant's absence without proof of service renders proceedings a nullity.
* Criminal procedure – Competence of memorandum of appeal – Section 362(2) Criminal Procedure Act – Defective written submissions cannot be cured by dismissing appeal in absence of appellant.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Revision power – Section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Nullification and quashing of appellate proceedings and remittal for rehearing.
|
26 September 2019 |
|
Uncorroborated recognition evidence failed to prove arson and assault; convictions quashed and sentences set aside.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence by recognition – caution required; uncorroborated recognition may be unreliable
* Arson – Elements: willful unlawful setting of fire; need to prove opportunity, access or preparation when evidence is circumstantial
* Evidentiary standards – Circumstantial evidence must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence
* Criminal procedure – Particulars in charge sheet – omission of specific sub‑section not fatal if particulars otherwise give sufficient notice
* PF3/medical evidence – absence of direct testimonial link weakens proof of assault causation
|
25 September 2019 |
|
Appellant’s conviction for uttering forged documents upheld where evidence proved forgery and his knowledge to defraud.
* Criminal law – Forgery and uttering false documents – Proof of forgery by tampering with voucher numbers and removal of cheque leaves – Knowledge and intent to defraud inferred from presentation of forged documents. * Evidence – Weight of bank and council officers’ testimony in establishing forgery. * Sentencing – Legality of maximum sentence imposed by a Senior Resident Magistrate.
|
24 September 2019 |
|
Conviction quashed where confession and documents were improperly admitted, defence ignored, and possession was not adequately proved.
* Evidence — Confession — Mandatory inquiry (trial within trial) upon objection to confession — section 27(2),(3) Evidence Act. * Evidence — Documents — requirement to read admitted exhibits aloud; failure renders exhibits of no evidential value. * Criminal law — Possession of suspected stolen property — necessity for independent corroboration of arresting officer’s testimony. * Criminal procedure — Substitution of charge under section 306(1) Criminal Procedure Act permissible but requires sufficient supporting evidence. * Fair hearing — Duty to consider defence evidence; omission vitiates conviction. * Retrial — Ordered only if in interests of justice; insufficiency of evidence and time already served may preclude retrial.
|
24 September 2019 |
|
Commercial Division can hear commercial loan disputes with land elements; default‑notice issues are factual, requiring trial evidence.
Jurisdiction — High Court divisions (Commercial and Land) are parts of the High Court; parties cannot by contract oust statutory jurisdiction; Commercial Division may hear commercial loan disputes with land/security elements; Procedure — questions of service and sufficiency of notice of default are factual issues not ordinarily resolvable on preliminary points of law; Remittal — matter returned to Commercial Division for hearing by another judge.
|
23 September 2019 |
|
A dismissal under Order XVII r.3 CPC is a decree and is appealable as of right under section 5(1)(a) AJA.
Civil procedure — Order XVII r.3 CPC — dismissal for want of prosecution — decision on the merits — decree under s.3 CPC — appealability under s.5(1)(a) AJA — no leave required; precedential conflict resolved in favour of earlier authorities (Salem Ahmed Hasson Zaidi; Ally Khalfan Mleh).
|
20 September 2019 |
|
Whether a trial court's judgment and decree complied with Order XX and whether the appeal should proceed on the merits.
Civil procedure – validity of judgment and decree – compliance with Order XX Rules (4), (5) and Rule 6(1) CPC – whether judgments must decide each framed issue and state reliefs; Appellate jurisdiction – Section 4(2) AJA – scope to revise or quash proceedings for irregularities; procedural point – raising validity of judgment for first time on appeal.
|
20 September 2019 |
|
High Court quashed imprisonment sentence imposed on a 16‑year‑old as unlawful under the Law of the Child Act.
* Child offenders – sentencing – Law of the Child Act s.116(1) – imprisonment not prescribed for children.
* Illegality of sentence – imprisonment imposed on a minor – sentence quashed.
* Supervisory jurisdiction – High Court visiting prison may call records and revise lower court sentences in interest of justice.
|
20 September 2019 |
|
Unexplained succession of judges during trial vitiates proceedings and warrants nullification and remittal for rehearing.
* Civil procedure – irregular change of presiding judges – individual judge calendar – Order XVIII r.10(1) CPC – unexplained transfers vitiate proceedings; entire proceedings liable to be nullified and remitted for rehearing.
* Civil procedure – decree must conform to judgment – Order XX r.7 CPC.
|
20 September 2019 |
|
Application for stay struck out because the impugned decree was declaratory and not executable.
Land law — stay of execution — executability of decree — declaratory orders not executable; title revocation and vesting in the State impede execution; competency of stay application.
|
20 September 2019 |
|
A successor judge's failure to record reasons for taking over a trial is jurisdictional and renders proceedings a nullity.
Civil procedure – succession of judges – Order XVIII r.10(1) CPC – mandatory requirement to record reasons when successor judge takes over; jurisdictional defect – failure to record reasons vitiates proceedings; overriding objective principle cannot cure jurisdictional/mandatory procedural defects; remedy: quash proceedings, set aside judgment and remit for fresh trial.
|
11 September 2019 |
|
Successor judges' failure to record reasons under Order XVIII r.10(1) CPC renders the proceedings a nullity.
* Civil procedure – Succession of judges – Order XVIII r.10(1) CPC – Mandatory requirement to record reasons where a judge is prevented from concluding a trial – failure to record reasons renders proceedings a nullity.
* Jurisdiction – Procedural irregularity going to jurisdiction – overriding objective principle cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
* Remedy – Quashing of proceedings, setting aside judgment and remitting for fresh trial.
|
11 September 2019 |
|
Failure to read and explain the memorandum at preliminary hearing breaches s192(3) CPA and vitiates the proceedings, requiring a rehearing.
* Criminal Procedure – Preliminary hearing – Compliance with section 192(2) and (3) CPA – memorandum of undisputed facts must be read and explained to accused.
* Evidence – Admission of documentary exhibits (PF3) – defence must be afforded opportunity to object or respond.
* Procedural law – Failure to comply with mandatory preliminary hearing requirements is a fundamental, incurable irregularity.
* Remedy – Nullification/quashing of defective preliminary hearing and order for rehearing from that stage.
|
10 September 2019 |
|
Expiry of probation does not automatically confirm employment; a still‑probationary resigning employee cannot claim ELRA Part III Sub‑Part E remedies.
Employment law — probationary employment — expiry of probation does not automatically confer confirmation; confirmation depends on contractual conditions — entitlement to remedies under Part III Sub‑Part E ELRA limited to non‑probationary employees — right to be heard where issue of probation was litigated in earlier proceedings.
|
9 September 2019 |
|
A probationary employee not confirmed at resignation cannot claim unfair termination under Part III, Sub‑Part E ELRA.
Employment law – Probationary period and confirmation; Rule 10 Code of Good Practice – probation not automatically converted to confirmation; ELRA s.35 – exclusion from Part III Sub‑Part E for employees under probation/with less than protected status; Constructive dismissal – probationers not entitled to unfair termination remedies; Natural justice – right to be heard where issue was previously pleaded.
|
9 September 2019 |
|
Failure to read and take plea to an amended charge nullified the trial; regulation invalidation requires judicial review.
Criminal procedure — Amendment of charge — section 234(2) CPA — mandatory requirement to read altered charge, take plea and allow recall of witnesses; failure renders trial nullity. Administrative law — Subsidiary legislation — regulations made under section 106(1) of the Forest Act can only be challenged by judicial review (Cap. 310); appellate courts must not invalidate regulations sua sponte. Forest law — Possession of imported timber — accused must account for lawful possession; import permit may be obtained post‑importation.
|
9 September 2019 |
|
The applicant's failure to account for each day of delay justified denial of extension to file a reference.
* Civil procedure — Court of Appeal — Reference under Rule 62 — extension of time — requirement to show good cause and account for each day of delay. * Illegality as ground for extension — must be apparent on the face of the record and properly pleaded. * Limitation Act — certain provisions inapplicable to Court of Appeal (s.43(b)). * Full Court interference — only where single Judge misinterprets law or exercises discretion improperly.
|
9 September 2019 |
|
Reference dismissed: applicant failed to account for delay and alleged illegality was not apparent or pleaded.
Court of Appeal — Reference under Rule 62 — Extension of time — Good cause requires accounting for each day of delay — Illegality as ground for extension must be apparent on face of record — Law of Limitation Act provisions inapplicable to Court of Appeal under section 43(b).
|
9 September 2019 |
|
A stay of execution application is premature and incompetent unless accompanied by security and a notice of intended execution.
Stay of execution – Rules 11(3)–(7) Court of Appeal Rules – cumulative conditions for stay – necessity of security or firm undertaking (Rule 11(5)(c)) – requirement to attach notice of intended execution (Rule 11(7)(d)) – prematurity where application relies on hearsay; failure to comply is fatal.
|
9 September 2019 |
|
An application for stay of execution is premature if the applicant fails to furnish security and attach the notice of intended execution.
* Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Rule 11(3)–(7) – cumulative compliance required; security (Rule 11(5)(c)) mandatory; copy of notice of intended execution (Rule 11(7)(d)) required; application based on hearsay is premature.
|
9 September 2019 |
|
Failure to read and explain the memorandum of undisputed facts to the accused vitiated the preliminary hearing; proceedings nullified and remitted.
Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing – Memorandum of matters agreed – Requirement to read over and explain memorandum to accused under s.192(3) Criminal Procedure Act – Mandatory duty; Failure to comply vitiates proceedings – Remedy: nullification under s.4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act and remittal; Transfer order vacated.
|
9 September 2019 |
|
High Court improperly decided an unpleaded ownership dispute after the underlying eviction order was quashed.
Land law – execution of court orders; scope of suit founded on eviction order – court may not decide unpleaded ownership dispute suo motu; admissibility and evidential value of documents annexed to pleadings; prior civil proceedings that neither adjudicated ownership nor granted title do not vest ownership.
|
5 September 2019 |
|
Extension of time refused where delay was unexplained and alleged illegality was not apparent on the record.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – applicant must show good cause under Rule 10 and Lyamuya factors (length of delay, reasons, diligence, prejudice, apparent illegality).
* Probate/inheritance dispute – allegations of illegality in distribution orders must be apparent on the face of the record to justify extension.
* Procedural compliance – notice of motion and supporting affidavit are complementary; minor defects are curable and not necessarily fatal.
|
5 September 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or apparent illegality to justify an extension of time to file a revision application.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time (Rule 10) – Good cause required – Lyamuya factors (length and reasons for delay, diligence, prejudice, point of law/illegality apparent on record). * Procedure – Form of application (Rule 48(1)) – Notice of motion and affidavit complementary; minor defects curable; expungement of argumentative paragraphs. * Illegality as basis for extension – must be apparent on face of record, not one requiring lengthy argument or research.
|
5 September 2019 |
|
Extension granted where delay excused by bona fide pursuit of appeal and alleged manifest illegalities justified revision.
Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – good cause – pursuing appeal and refusal of leave – excusable delay; Revision v. appeal – single Justice not to pre‑judge merits; Alleged illegality apparent on face of record (assessors, succession of Judge, recall of witness, mediation irregularity) justifies extension.
|
4 September 2019 |
|
High Court erred by deciding ownership sua sponte after the eviction order central to the suit had been quashed.
Land — Execution of eviction order — Eviction order quashed — Trial court improperly deciding ownership sua sponte — Parties entitled to be heard on newly raised issues — Documents annexed to pleadings require formal tender to have evidential value — Prior civil proceedings failing to vest title do not establish ownership.
|
3 September 2019 |
|
Applicant granted conditional stay pending appeal subject to depositing TZS 16,200,700 bank guarantee within 45 days.
Stay of execution – Rule 11(2) Court of Appeal Rules – requirement of no unreasonable delay and demonstration of substantial loss – firm undertaking for security suffices – conditional stay on bank guarantee.
|
2 September 2019 |
|
Court granted 60-day extension to file revision due to apparent illegality in High Court proceedings despite applicant's delay.
Civil procedure – extension of time under Rule 10 – applicant’s failure to account for each day of delay – counsel’s negligence – illegality apparent on face of record as sufficient cause – summary rejection/misinterpretation of procedural rules by High Court.
|
2 September 2019 |
|
Reported
An apparent illegality on the face of the record justified a 60‑day extension despite applicants' delay and counsel's negligence.
Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to account for each day of delay – diligence of counsel – illegality apparent on the face of the record as sufficient cause – striking out for want of prosecution – misinterpretation of law (Order IX r.9(1) CPC) – grant of 60 days extension; costs each party.
|
2 September 2019 |