|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2005 |
|
|
Decree signed by Deputy Registrar invalid where Order XX r.7 mandates a judge's signature; appellant allowed to amend.
Civil procedure – validity of extracted decree – Order XX r.7 mandatory requirement that the judge or magistrate sign a decree – conflict with Order XLIII r.1(d) permitting Registrar/Deputy to sign – Interpretation of Laws Act on "may" vs "shall" – appeal preserved by leave to amend record.
|
17 November 2005 |
|
Decree signed by Deputy Registrar contrary to mandatory Order XX r.7 is invalid; appellant allowed to amend the record.
Civil Procedure — Validity of extracted decree — Order XX r.7 requires judge to sign decree — Order XLIII r.1(d) permissive and subject to Chief Justice directions — "shall" versus "may" under Interpretation of Laws Act — decree signed by Deputy Registrar invalid — leave to amend record of appeal.
|
17 November 2005 |
| October 2005 |
|
|
Failure to conduct the mandatory voir dire for a child witness rendered key evidence inadmissible, leading to quashing of the conviction.
Evidence Act s.127(2) – Voir dire mandatory for child witnesses of tender years; admission of child’s evidence without inquiry fatal; PF3 medical report delay limits corroboration; discrepancies in identity and dates raise reasonable doubt; criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
28 October 2005 |
From the conviction of the High Courtof Tanzaniaa at Arusha, Msoffe, J., dated 11 July 2003, Criminal Appealal number 48 of 2002) H Criminal Practice and Procedure - Pleas — Plea of guilty - Whether and under what circumstances a conviction on an accused person's own plea of guilty is appealable - section 360(1)of thee Criminal Procedure Act, 1985. |
26 October 2005 |
|
Undisclosed source of night-time light made visual identification unsafe; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – identification at night – visual identification must be watertight – prosecution must prove source and sufficiency of light – benefit of doubt on unsafe identification – conviction quashed.
|
26 October 2005 |
| September 2005 |
|
|
Non‑compliance with s.192(3) vitiates the preliminary hearing but does not automatically nullify the entire trial.
Criminal procedure – section 192(3) Criminal Procedure Act – preliminary hearing – memorandum of agreed matters – mandatory requirements; non‑compliance vitiates preliminary hearing but does not automatically void entire trial; retrial depends on nature and prejudice of irregularity; Rule 6 – accused to state admitted facts.
|
30 September 2005 |
| July 2005 |
|
|
Murder conviction overturned due to contradictory witness evidence, inadequate circumstantial proof, and an uncorroborated, unexplained caution statement.
Criminal law - murder; insufficiency of circumstantial evidence (Tuwamoi test); repudiated caution statement and requirement for judicial reasons (Hatibu Gandhi); adverse inference for failure to call material witnesses; conviction quashed.
|
15 July 2005 |
|
Defective citation of the enabling statutory provision rendered the leave application incompetent; appeal struck out.
Appeal procedure — Leave to appeal vs certificate on point of law — Incorrect or non-specific citation of enabling statute renders application incompetent — Court may strike out defective applications — Notice of appeal struck out for violating Rule 89(2)(i).
|
15 July 2005 |
|
Application for revision struck out for failing to cite the specific statutory provision relied upon.
Civil procedure — Revision — Procedural requirement to cite specific enabling statutory provision in notice of motion — Failure to specify section of Act is fatal and may result in striking out the application; preliminary objections and timing/appeal-versus-revision issues not decided.
|
15 July 2005 |
|
An appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out if the record omits the extracted decree or required exhibits; inadvertence is not an excuse.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Record of appeal – Requirement to include extracted copy of the decree or order appealed from and specified exhibits – Non‑compliance renders appeal incompetent – Inadvertence or counsel’s carelessness not an acceptable excuse.
|
15 July 2005 |
|
Application for civil revision was time‑barred and incompetent for citing wrong statute; struck out with costs.
Appellate jurisdiction – revision in civil matters – time limit for filing – sixty-day rule – application filed after eight months held time‑barred. Procedure – enabling provision – citing wrong/ non‑existent statutory provision renders application incompetent. Condonation – solicitor/advocate’s negligence not ground to extend time in these proceedings. Relief – application struck out with costs.
|
15 July 2005 |
|
A revision cannot substitute for an appeal; inordinate delay renders a revision application incompetent and it is struck out.
Civil procedure — Revision v Appeal — Revision is discretionary and cannot substitute for appellate jurisdiction. Limitation — Time bar — Inordinate delay beyond prescribed 60 days renders application incompetent. Procedure — Defective notice of appeal — remedy is to seek extension/rectification, not necessarily to abandon appeal and seek revision. Preliminary objections under Rule 100 — competence and timeliness of application can be struck out.
|
15 July 2005 |
|
Intoxication did not negate intent; admissions in memorandum were deemed proved and murder conviction upheld.
Criminal law – murder – malice aforethought – intoxication as a defence – capacity to form intent; effect of admissions in a memorandum of agreed matters under s.192(4) Criminal Procedure Act.
|
15 July 2005 |
|
Conviction for malicious damage quashed where ownership dispute and instruction by alleged co-owner created reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Malicious damage to property – Ownership dispute of land – Claim of right by alleged co-owner – Instruction by claimed co-owner as negating malice – Insufficient record to sustain conviction.
|
15 July 2005 |
|
Appellants' malicious damage convictions quashed because ownership and lawful possession of the land were unresolved.
Criminal law – Malicious damage to property – Effect of disputed ownership/possession on mens rea and liability; acting on instruction of one asserting co-ownership; adequacy of proof of lawful possession; appellate intervention where title unresolved.
|
15 July 2005 |
|
Single-witness identification and recent possession established robbery; sentence increased to the statutory 30-year minimum.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – elements: theft combined with actual personal violence to obtain or retain property – requirement to prove nature of violence. Evidence – visual identification by a single witness – cautionary approach; conviction safe where conditions and opportunity exclude mistaken identity. Evidence – doctrine of recent possession – accused found in possession of distinctly identifiable stolen property shortly after theft. Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act (as amended by Act No.6 of 1994) – statutory minimum 30 years where robbery involves use of personal violence or is committed in company or with dangerous weapon. Appeal – concurrent findings of fact by lower courts not lightly disturbed where warranted by evidence.
|
15 July 2005 |
|
A notice of appeal not pursued for over six years may be struck out; an advocate's error does not excuse procedural non-compliance.
Civil procedure – striking out notice of appeal for want of prosecution; requirement to request certified record of appeal; late supplementary affidavits not allowed to pre-empt preliminary objections; advocate’s error/oversight not sufficient reason to extend time.
|
6 July 2005 |
|
Application to serve appeal documents out of time refused due to gross recklessness and inconsistent explanations; appeal struck out.
Civil procedure – Service of documents – Rules 77(1) and 83(2) – Leave to serve out of time – Requirement to show good cause – Inconsistent affidavits and gross recklessness justify refusal – Non-compliance results in striking out notice of appeal.
|
6 July 2005 |
| June 2005 |
|
|
A default judgment entered without evaluating pleadings and evidence is invalid; proceedings quashed and judgment remitted.
Civil procedure – Order XVII r.3 CPC – default judgment requirements – adjournment on party’s application – necessity to evaluate pleadings and evidence; Order XX r.4 & r.6 CPC – contents and consistency of judgment and decree; Court of Appeal revisional powers – s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to correct unlawful interlocutory orders; procedural defects in record and endorsement by registry officer not necessarily fatal to appeal.
|
15 June 2005 |
| April 2005 |
|
|
Appeal allowed where death was unproved and convictions rested on uncorroborated, illegally obtained statements.
Criminal law – Proof of death in murder charge – necessity of scientifically identifying remains; Evidence – hearsay requiring corroboration; Extra-judicial statements – inadmissibility where recorded outside statutory detention periods (sections 50, 51, and evidential effect under section 169).
|
18 April 2005 |