|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2020 |
|
|
Review dismissed: alleged defective or amended charge improper; Court lawfully corrected sentence under section 131(3), not amending the charge.
Criminal law – Review jurisdiction of Court of Appeal – Rule 66 grounds – Whether defective charge amounts to nullity – Review v appeal – Correction of sentence under section 131(3) Penal Code (victim under ten) not an amendment of charge – Substitution of proper sentence; Marwa Mahende authority.
|
30 September 2020 |
|
Notice under the voluntary agreement validly terminated its operation, so the applicant's gratuity was payable under new terms.
Contract law – interpretation of collective/voluntary agreement – effect of clause providing for fixed duration and extension by notice
Labour/Employment – gratuity entitlement – whether employer’s notice and subsequent circulars validly changed the basis of gratuity. Service of notice – validity of serving notice on union branch and consequence for continuity of agreement. Parties bound by contractual terms; courts will enforce notice provisions rather than re‑draft contracts
|
30 September 2020 |
|
Curable defects and minor inconsistencies do not overturn conviction where appellant was caught in flagrante delicto and medical evidence corroborated victim.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – accused found in flagrante delicto and medical corroboration. Criminal procedure – Defective charge – omission of punishment provision curable under section 388 CPA if no prejudice
Evidence – Clinical officer competent to examine victim and give evidence; PF3 corroborative though improperly admitted
Evidence – Exhibits improperly tendered may be expunged without vitiating whole case if oral evidence suffices. Appellate jurisdiction – New grounds not raised in first appeal will not be entertained
|
30 September 2020 |
|
Failure to comply with section 231(1) CPA vitiates proceedings and, where appropriate, warrants retrial from the defence stage.
Criminal law – Rape – Procedure after close of prosecution case – Mandatory duty of trial court under section 231(1) Criminal Procedure Act to explain charge and inform accused of right to give evidence and call witnesses – Non‑compliance vitiates subsequent proceedings – Nullification of defence and conviction – Retrial ordered where appropriate.
|
30 September 2020 |
|
A Single Justice may not substitute a party or treat a personal affidavit as that of a successor without formal procedural substitution.
Probate law – substitution of parties – substitution of applicant after change of administratrix – proper procedural steps required. Civil procedure – Single Justice’s jurisdiction – cannot amend parties beyond pleadings
Evidence – affidavit sworn on personal knowledge of former administratrix cannot be treated as affidavit of successor without formal substitution
Precedent – distinguishability of earlier decision on stay of execution before Full Court
|
25 September 2020 |
|
A tribunal's judgment that ignores existing evidence as directed by a superior court is invalid and is quashed.
Land disputes — compliance with superior court directions — requirement to consider previously recorded evidence when composing a fresh judgment. Civil procedure — essentials of a judgment — section 3 and Order XX Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code; judgment must state case, points for determination, decision and reasons and show application of mind. Appellate/Revisionary powers — exercise of Court of Appeal's revisional jurisdiction under section 4(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to quash defective tribunal and appellate proceedings
|
25 September 2020 |
|
A child's affirmed testimony met statutory promise requirements; victim's credible account upheld and appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – sexual offences – rape and impregnating a schoolgirl – child witness of tender age – Evidence Act s.127 (as amended 2016) – promise to tell the truth – admissibility of affirmed/sworn evidence – second appeal – new factual grounds not entertained – concurrence of findings.
|
24 September 2020 |
|
Conviction quashed where trial court failed to consider accused’s defence, denying a fair and full hearing.
Criminal law – Right to a fair hearing – Duty of trial court to consider accused’s defence; Failure to consider defence is fatal. Identification evidence – visual identification requires particulars of lighting/area to exclude mistaken identity. Criminal procedure – Appellate review requires re-evaluation of entire record; unexplained delayed arrest and failure to call material police witness weaken prosecution case
Remittal – Incurable trial irregularity may warrant quashing rather than remittal
|
24 September 2020 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody for seized elephant tusks.
Evidence – Exhibits – Chain of custody – Necessity of documented, chronological trail from seizure to tender in court to prevent tampering. Criminal procedure – Appellate jurisdiction – New grounds not raised in first appeal cannot be entertained by Court of Appeal (s.4(1) AJA)
Evidence – Failure to call key witness – potential for adverse inference where unexplained omission (but ground was new and not entertained)
|
24 September 2020 |
|
Plea was equivocal because the facts were not read; victim was not cross‑examined; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – plea-taking – requirement to read and explain facts of the case and record accused’s words – plea equivocal if essentials not read; right to cross-examination – denial renders testimony inadmissible; sentencing – accused must be allowed to mitigate and court must state reasons weighing mitigating and aggravating factors; conviction quashed and matter remitted for retrial.
|
24 September 2020 |
|
Trial without proper DPP consent and an improper transfer certificate rendered proceedings a nullity; convictions quashed and appellant released.
Jurisdiction — EOCCA s.26 consent required before trial of economic offences; certificate of transfer — s.12(3) applies to pure economic offences, s.12(4) required for mixed economic/non‑economic charges; failure to comply renders proceedings a nullity; remedy — quash convictions, set aside sentences; retrial discretionary; protection against double jeopardy/autrefois acquit.
|
23 September 2020 |
|
Applicant’s killing of spouse involved malice aforethought; conviction and death sentence upheld.
Criminal law – Murder – Malice aforethought – Intention inferred from weapon used, force, parts of body attacked, number and nature of blows, and accused’s conduct before and after incident
Evidence – Weight of direct testimony and post‑mortem findings where photographic evidence is excluded
Defence – Self‑defence and claim of accidental or lesser injury rejected where circumstances and admissions are implausible
|
23 September 2020 |
|
Notice of appeal struck out for failure to take essential steps to institute appeal within prescribed time without sufficient cause.
Civil procedure – Appeal procedure – Rule 90(1) & (3) CPR: requirement to institute appeal within 60 days, apply in writing for copies and serve respondent; failure to take essential steps allows striking out under Rule 89(2)
Appellate Jurisdiction – requirement to seek leave and certificate on points of law under s.5(2)(c) AJA where appeal originates from Primary Court
Delay – adequacy of excuse: financial constraints and illness must be supported by evidence (affidavit/medical proof) to constitute sufficient cause
|
21 September 2020 |
|
A written sale agreement and part payment created a binding contract; statutory conveyancing formalities do not negate enforceability.
Land law – Sale of land – Existence and enforceability of written sale agreement despite divergent documents; Contractual stage versus conveyancing/registration stage; Specific performance and injunction for breach of land sale agreement.
|
21 September 2020 |
|
Appeal struck out as time‑barred where no Registrar’s certificate of delay or extension was shown.
Civil procedure — Appeals — Time limits under Rule 90(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules — Requirement to apply in writing within thirty days for certified copy and to serve the application — Need for Registrar’s certificate or court‑granted extension to exclude delay; absent these, appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
18 September 2020 |
|
Striking out for lack of jurisdiction is not a refusal permitting a second bite; formal transfer and registration are required for extended jurisdiction.
Procedure and jurisdiction — application for leave to appeal — High Court struck out application for lack of jurisdiction; Resident Magistrate with extended jurisdiction may hear applications for extension and leave only after formal transfer order and registration; striking out for want of jurisdiction is not a substantive refusal permitting a second bite under Rule 45(b).
|
18 September 2020 |
|
Where lower courts fail to consider the defence, the Court of Appeal may reappraise evidence and may uphold convictions and life sentences.
Criminal law – sexual offences against children – proof beyond reasonable doubt – minor inconsistencies not fatal; proof of child’s age – testimony of victim and parent admissible; voire dire irregularity – affirmation before test non-fatal if understanding established; failure to consider accused’s defence vitiates conviction; second appellate intervention – Court may re-appraise evidence in deserving cases; curable omission to convict and enhance sentence under Criminal Procedure Act.
|
17 September 2020 |
|
Applicant who failed to seek Reference against a Single Justice's decision cannot file a second identical application; application struck out.
Criminal procedure – Single Justice decisions – Rule 62(1)(a) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Requirement to apply for Reference (informally to Justice or by writing to Registrar within seven days) – No second bite by filing identical application after dismissal by Single Justice.
|
16 September 2020 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove fictitious identity or forgery; appeal dismissed and acquittals upheld.
Criminal law – burden of proof – prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; identity/fictitious name – must be proved by prosecution; cautioned statement retracted – requires corroboration before reliance; forgery/uttering false documents – necessity of independent evidence; appellate review of trial court's over-reliance on retracted confession.
|
16 September 2020 |
|
Extension refused: technical delay shown but applicant failed to demonstrate arguable grounds under Rule 66(1).
Criminal procedure – Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 10 (extension of time to apply for review) – technical delay may constitute good cause – but applicant must also show an arguable case grounded in Rule 66(1)(a)–(e) for review.
|
16 September 2020 |
|
Extension of time to seek review requires both good cause and an arguable ground under Rule 66.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time to apply for review (Rule 10) — Technical delay (review struck out for defective affidavit) can constitute good cause; Review applications — Requirement to show an arguable case based on Rule 66(1)(a)–(e) (manifest error; denial of hearing; nullity; lack of jurisdiction; fraud/perjury); Applicant must both account for delay and specify Rule 66 ground(s).
|
16 September 2020 |
|
Appeal struck out as time-barred for failure to apply for certified copies and comply with Rule 90(1).
Civil procedure – Appeals – Time limits under Rule 90(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules; requirement to apply for certified copies within 30 days and obtain Registrar’s certificate to exclude delay; omission of application letter in the record bars reliance on the proviso; appeal struck out as incompetent.
|
16 September 2020 |
|
An appeal filed outside the Rule 90(1) sixty-day period is time-barred and must be struck out.
Civil procedure — Limitation of appeals — Rule 90(1) Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules — Sixty-day time limit to institute appeal and Registrar's certificate to exclude preparation time. Civil procedure — Rule 4(2)(a) — Cannot be used to override specific limitation provisions in other rules. Procedural compliance — Failure to follow rules (timely applications for copies, proper citations) renders applications incompetent and liable to be struck out. Time-barred appeals — Remedy is striking out where no statutory basis exists to extend the filing period
|
16 September 2020 |
|
An appeal filed after 60 days without a Registrar's certificate of delay is incompetent and struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeal competence – Rule 90(1) Court of Appeal Rules – sixty-day filing requirement for memorandum and record of appeal. Civil procedure – Certificate of Delay – necessity to apply to High Court Registrar within thirty days to exclude time for preparation of record. Civil procedure – Leave to appeal – section 17(5) Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act grants automatic right of appeal; leave not required. Procedural compliance – failure to follow Rules renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out
|
15 September 2020 |
|
Applicant lacked locus standi due to inconsistent identity/administration documents; revision application struck out with costs.
Locus standi – requirement to show an interest affected before instituting revision; Identity of deceased – need to harmonize and prove name discrepancies before suing as administrator; Revision jurisdiction – Court will dismiss applications where applicant lacks proven authority regardless of substantive complaints; Compromise of suit and execution issues not addressed where applicant is incompetent to sue.
|
2 September 2020 |
|
Language-barrier at arrest did not prejudice trial; possession, chain of custody and Government Chemist findings upheld and appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – narcotic drugs – airport seizure – possession; Criminal procedure – right to be informed at arrest and interpreter requirement – language barrier; Evidence – chain of custody of exhibits; Evidence – weight discrepancies and role of Government Chemist; Evidence Act – procedure for impeaching witness by prior written statement.
|
2 September 2020 |
|
A notice of appeal citing a different offence is substantively defective and cannot be amended under Rule 68(8); appeal struck out.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Notice must state the nature of conviction – A notice citing a different offence is substantively defective and does not institute an appeal
Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 68(8) – Amendment of notice – Permits amendment of form, not substance
Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.3A – Overriding objective cannot be applied to cure substantive procedural defects
|
2 September 2020 |