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
12 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
12 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
July 2005
Amsi Gununu vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2004) [2005] TZCA 157 (15 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
Anthony J. Tesha vs Anita Tesha (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2003) [2005] TZCA 182 (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
Fabian Akonaay vs Matias Dawite (Civil Application No. 11 of 2003) [2005] TZCA 194 (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
Frank Kibanga vs Acu Limited (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2003) [2005] TZCA 193 (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
Husein Mgonja vs The Trustees, Tanzania Episcopal Conference (Civil Application No. 2 of 2002) [2005] TZCA 174 (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
J.H. Komba Esq Ex-Employee, E.A. Community vs The Regional Revenue Officer Sub-Treasury and Another (AR-Civil Application No. 3 of 2002) [2005] TZCA 176 (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
Mathayo Lendita vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2004) [2005] TZCA 107 (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
Naiman Abraham and 3 Others vs The Republic (Criminal Appeal 89 of 1994) [2005] TZCA 95 (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
Naiman Abraham and Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1994) [2005] TZCA 112 (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
Zubell Opeshutu vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2003) [2005] TZCA 134 (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
Method Kimomogoro vs Board of Trustees Tanapa (Civil Application No. 1 of 2005) [2005] TZCA 207 (6 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
Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd. & Another vs August Michael Tarimo (T/a Hai Club) (Civil Application No. 4 of 2004) [2005] TZCA 253 (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