Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

Court of Appeal of Tanzania

This is the highest level in the justice delivery system in Tanzania. The Court of Appeal draws its mandate from Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The Court hears appeals  on both point of law and facts for cases originating from the High Court of Tanzania and Magistrates with extended jurisdiction in exercise of their original jurisdiction or appellate and revisional jurisdiction over matters originating in the District Land and Housing Tribunals, District Courts and Courts of Resident Magistrate. The Court also hears similar appeals  from quasi judicial bodies of status equivalent to that of the High Court. It  further hears appeals  on point of law against the decision of the High Court in  matters originating from Primary Courts. The Court of Appeal also exercises jurisdiction on appeals originating from the High Court of Zanzibar except for constitutional issues arising from the interpretation of the Constitution of Zanzibar and matters arising from the Kadhi Court.

Physical address
26 Kivukoni Road Building P.O. Box 9004, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Visit website
https://jmap.judiciary.go.tz/jmap/jmap-coa
11 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Topics
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
11 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
July 2003
Registered Trustees of Social Action Trust Fund and Another vs Happy Sausages Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2002) [2003] TZCA 126 (29 July 2003)
Reported

Civil Practice and Procedure -Bias — Test to be applied where there is allegation of bias.


Civil Practice and Procedure - Disqualification of a Judge from hearing a case —Grounds for invoking such a step.


Civil Practice and Procedure - Injunction — Distinction between an injunction "ad interim ” and a temporary injunction..

 29 July 2003
Registered Trustees of Social Action Trust Fund & Another vs Messrs Happy Sausages Limited & Others (Civil Appeal 70 of 2002) [2003] TZCA 26 (29 July 2003)
Reported
Alleged judicial bias not established; ex-parte interim order lawful, appeal dismissed but matter reassigned to another judge.
Judicial bias – disqualification – alleged recording errors, ex-parte injunction, failure to cite authorities and immoderate language – whether these establish apparent bias. Interim relief – ex-parte/temporary injunction – power under Order XXXVII rules 1 and 2 where altered/urgent circumstances exist. Test for apparent bias – fair-minded and informed observer inquiry (Porter v Magill formulation). Duty of judge to give reasons – Order XX r.4 Civil Procedure Code.
 29 July 2003
June 2003
Joseph M. Mutashobya vs M/s Kibo Match Group Limited (Civil Appeal 53 of 2001) [2003] TZCA 21 (11 June 2003)
Reported
Termination by payment in lieu under a fixed‑term employment contract is valid absent a contractual duty to give reasons.
Employment law – fixed‑term contract – early termination permitted by clause providing three months' notice or payment in lieu – no implied duty to give reasons absent contractual provision. Administrative law – duty to give reasons applies to public authorities, not private contracts, unless contract requires it. Constitutional challenge – right to work not entertained on appeal where not raised or decided at trial.
 11 June 2003
Joseph M. Mutashobya vs M/S Kibo Match Group Limited (Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2001) [2003] TZCA 124 (11 June 2003)
Reported

Labour Law - Contract of Employment - Termination of contract of employment - Termination of employment contract entered into for specified period Whether Employer may terminate it before expiry ofthe specified period.

Labour Law - Contract of Employment - Termination of contract of employment - Whether employer may decide to terminate it without giving reasons - Article 13(6) of the Constitution.

Basic Rights - Right to Work - Whether termination of employment by employer is violative ofthe employee's constitutional right to work — Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

 11 June 2003
May 2003
Mariam Mariki vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1999) [2003] TZCA 39 (28 May 2003)
Robbery conviction reversed for lack of proof of theft; conviction substituted to causing grievous harm and sentence quashed.
Criminal law – robbery with violence – elements require theft plus contemporaneous use or threat of violence – where theft is only alleged by a single witness with opportunity to steal, conviction unsafe; alibi evidence must be coherent to raise reasonable doubt; sentencing – 30-year minimum for armed robbery requires charge to allege armed robbery.
 28 May 2003
Martin Wilson and Another vs Mrs. Demetria E. Mosha (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2001) [2003] TZCA 95 (27 May 2003)
Appeal struck out as time‑barred because appellant failed to serve respondent with Registrar application required by Rule 83(2).
Court of Appeal Rules 1979 – Rule 83(1) & (2) – computation of time for instituting appeal – requirement to serve respondent with copy of written application to Registrar for proceedings, judgment and decree – failure to prove service defeats reliance on exception; procedural compliance and preliminary objections; appeal competence/time‑bar.
 27 May 2003
Mathias Mallya as Legal Representativs of Rev J.P Mallya vs Anthony Thomas Temba and Another (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1995) [2003] TZCA 40 (27 May 2003)
No jurisdictional defect and no proof of fraud in acquisition of disputed plots; appeal dismissed with costs.
Property dispute; agency and fiduciary duty; alleged fraudulent acquisition of land; jurisdiction under Rent Restriction Act; second appeal limited to law or law and fact from first appeal; sufficiency of evidence of fraud.
 27 May 2003
Laban Shadrack vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2001) [2003] TZCA 56 (26 May 2003)
Credible child eyewitness and forensic reports established malice aforethought, upholding the murder conviction.
Criminal law – Murder – Evidence of child witness (tender years) – compliance with s.127 Evidence Act – Corroboration by post-mortem and chemist report – Cause of death: head injuries – Malice aforethought under s.200 Penal Code (knowledge/recklessness).
 26 May 2003
Nduminsari Ismael Kimaro vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2001) [2003] TZCA 55 (20 May 2003)
Tearing of clothing and injuries without more did not establish attempted rape; conviction reduced to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Criminal law – Attempted rape – Elements: intention, overt act adapted to fulfilment and establishment of overt acts (s.380 Penal Code; s.132(1) as amended). Evidence – Corroboration and contradictions: material discrepancies between eyewitness accounts and medical report may undermine attempt conviction. Criminal procedure – Charge drafting: desirable to cite both s.132(1) and s.380; omission not necessarily fatal. Sentencing – Statutory minima for attempted rape noted but not applied after substitution of conviction.
 20 May 2003
Peter Emmanuel vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1998) [2003] TZCA 75 (8 May 2003)
Appellant ordered released after court quashed an irregular enhanced sentence and remitted the appeal for proper hearing.
Criminal procedure – consolidation of appeals – apparent consolidation without hearing – appeal premature. Sentencing – irregular/muddled sentencing entries and committal warrants – validity of imprisonment based on irregular order. Judicial review – quashing of improperly made sentence enhancement and remitting the appeal for proper hearing. Prison law – release order where incarceration stems from quashed or unlawful order.
 8 May 2003
March 2003
Hussein Ali Dotto vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1996) [2003] TZCA 41 (7 March 2003)
Identification by familiar witnesses upheld despite irregular search; use of pangas/knife constitutes armed robbery — appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – identification evidence where witnesses were familiar with accused – prior description not always decisive; Search and seizure – absence of warrant/receipt renders search irregular but does not necessarily exonerate accused; Proof of ownership of seized property – receipt/description required; Armed robbery – use of pangas/knives qualifies and attracts 30‑year sentence.
 7 March 2003