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.
16 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
16 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
April 2008
Court upheld the applicant's rape conviction on credible eyewitness and medical evidence; absence of semen not fatal.
Sexual offences – rape – proof of penetration – penetration however slight is sufficient; absence of semen not fatal to prosecution case. Evidence – credibility of eyewitness and medical evidence corroborating sexual assault. Criminal procedure – prosecution’s discretion as to which witnesses and exhibits to call.
25 April 2008
Applicant granted extension and leave to file a notice of appeal out of time due to court/registrar error and justice considerations.
Civil procedure – Extension of time under Court of Appeal Rules r.8; sufficiency of reasons for delay; court/registrar errors and counsel inadvertence; discretion to grant leave to file notice of appeal out of time; constitutional right to appeal; jurisdictional issue originating from tax matters.
25 April 2008
Night-time visual identification and inadequate corroboration rendered the conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and appellant released.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Night-time identification; factors: distance, duration of observation, intensity of light, prior acquaintance (Waziri Amani principles). Corroboration – Scope and quality required; corroboration cannot bolster inherently unreliable eyewitness evidence. Standard of proof – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; courts must not convict on weakness of defence.
24 April 2008
Reported
Court upheld appellants' convictions: identification and recovery evidence sufficient despite challenge to caution‑statement timing.
Criminal law – armed robbery; identification evidence in daylight and prior acquaintance; admissibility and timing of caution statements (s.50 CPA); recovery of stolen property as corroboration; appellate scrutiny of overall sufficiency of evidence.
23 April 2008
Reported
Appeal dismissed; conviction for sodomy of a child upheld on credible eyewitness evidence despite procedural omissions.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence (sodomy) against a child – evidence of child witnesses – voir dire – admissibility of prior police statement and PF3 (s.240(3)) – sketch plan – corroboration of child testimony – right to silence and s.231(1) rights explanation.
23 April 2008
Appellate court upheld conviction based on credible eyewitness child testimony despite procedural omissions.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence; Evidence – voir dire for child witness; Evidence – admissibility of PF3 and section 240(3) compliance; Eyewitness identification of child witnesses; Right to silence and adverse inference.
23 April 2008
Reported
Conviction quashed for failure to conduct/record child voir dire, call examining doctor, and fairly assess defence.
Evidence — Child witness — voir dire — requirement to determine and record that child has sufficient intelligence and understands duty to tell the truth (s127 Evidence Act). Criminal procedure — Medical report (PF3) — duty to inform accused of right to have examining doctor summoned for cross-examination (s240(3) Criminal Procedure Act); non-production undermines authenticity. Criminal appeal — failure to analyze and give reasons when rejecting defence may amount to miscarriage of justice warranting quashing of conviction.
23 April 2008
Applicant’s vague failure to disclose when corrected judgment was received defeated extension of time to seek leave to appeal.
Civil procedure – extension of time – applicant must account for delay by disclosing when he became aware of the decision – vague or inconsistent affidavits fail to show sufficient cause; procedural defects in Notice of Motion may be cured by grounds in affidavit but do not excuse substantive failure to account for delay.
22 April 2008
A precautionary extension under Rule 8 is appropriate where a High Court application for leave to appeal remains pending.
Extension of time – Court of Appeal Rules, r.8 – precautionary applications where leave to appeal pending in High Court – Rule 83(1) exception and certificate of delay – procedural compliance and service of notices.
22 April 2008
Reported
Recent-possession conviction upheld for leading participant; third appellant acquitted on doubts from contradictions and delays.
Criminal law – armed robbery – doctrine of recent possession – identification and possession of stolen goods shortly after theft – credibility, contradictions, delayed statements and absence of exhibits – appellate interference with concurrent findings of fact.
21 April 2008
Recent-possession conviction upheld for one appellant; convictions of two others quashed for inconsistent and uncorroborated evidence.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Application of doctrine of recent possession where stolen property recovered shortly after theft. Evidence – Accomplice evidence – Necessity for corroboration where conviction rests primarily on another accused's statement. Evidence – Evaluation of contradictions, delays in statements and failure to tender exhibits affecting safety of conviction. Appellate review – Interference with concurrent findings where there are misdirections or unresolved inconsistencies.
21 April 2008
Daylight identification and recovered property upheld conviction despite possible delay in recording a caution statement.
Criminal law – armed robbery – identification evidence – prior acquaintance, daylight observation and corroboration by third party. Criminal procedure – cautioned statements – compliance with section 50 Criminal Procedure Act – effect of delayed recording and admissibility. Evidence – recovery of stolen property – serial numbers and receipts as corroboration. Appellate review – sufficiency of evidence notwithstanding procedural defects in statements.
21 April 2008
Reported
18 April 2008
Appeal dismissed: child’s identification and independent evidence upheld despite improper PF3 and unlawful cautioned statement.
Criminal law – Sexual offence (unnatural offence/sodomy) – Child witness competency under Evidence Act s127(5) – Admission of medical report PF3 and accused's rights under CPA s240(3) – Cautioned statement and CPA s50 – Visual identification by a single witness – Appeal dismissed.
18 April 2008
Possession of stolen goods shortly after an armed robbery and no explanation justified upholding the appellants' convictions.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – recent possession – possession of stolen property shortly after robbery and absence of satisfactory explanation – conviction upheld. Evidence – unlisted witness at preliminary hearing – duplication of testimony and harmlessness of omission.
18 April 2008
Reported
Failure to conduct/record a proper voir dire and to summon the examining doctor undermined the prosecution’s case; conviction quashed.
Criminal law – sexual offence against a child; Evidence Act s.127(2) & (7) – voir dire and finding on child witness competence; Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) – right to have examining doctor summoned; Admissibility and authenticity of PF3 (medical report); Duty of trial court to consider and give reasons when rejecting defence.
18 April 2008