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
6 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
6 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
August 2009
James Mosha vs Shose Jared Mkonyi and Another (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 287 (14 August 2009)
An out-of-time High Court appeal from a district court without leave is a nullity and is quashed.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Time limit for appeal to the High Court from district court exercising appellate jurisdiction – Section 25(1)(b) Magistrates' Court Act – 30 days – leave required to extend time. Jurisdiction – High Court entertained out-of-time appeal without leave – proceedings declared nullity and quashed. Costs – each party to bear own costs where irregularity raised by the Court.
 14 August 2009
May 2009
Ae Shauri @ Martin vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 184 (29 May 2009)
Murder conviction reduced to manslaughter where evidence contradicted post‑mortem and malice aforethought was not proved.
Criminal law – murder v. manslaughter – insufficiency and inconsistency of eyewitness evidence; post‑mortem contradictions with eyewitness accounts; failure to call crucial witnesses; caution statement indicating possible self‑defence or provocation; appellate substitution of conviction and reduction of sentence.
 29 May 2009
Josiah Ezekiel @ Belito vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 186 (29 May 2009)
Conviction based on weak visual identification and an uncorroborated dying declaration was unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Evidence must be watertight; Waziri Aman cautionary rules apply. Evidence – Dying declaration – Uncross‑examined statements are weak and unsafe if uncorroborated and imprecise. Burden of proof – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; weaknesses in identification and corroboration render conviction unsafe.
 29 May 2009
Mathew Stephen @ Lawrence vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 187 (29 May 2009)
Visual identification and recovered identity card upheld the appellant’s armed robbery convictions; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification – Waziri Amani principles – sufficiency of identification evidence; Alibi – non‑compliance with s.194 CPA – credibility; Documentary evidence – identity card recovered from stolen vehicle linking accused to offence; Identification parade dispensed with where ample opportunity existed.
 29 May 2009
Pascal Christopher and Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2006) [2009] TZCA 119 (29 May 2009)
Failure to consider alibi and unsafe visual identification rendered convictions unsafe and were quashed.
Criminal law – Visual identification – conviction unsustainable where conditions (night, fear, unknown observation time/distance) leave real possibility of mistaken identity. Criminal procedure – Alibi (s.194 CPA) – failure of trial and appellate courts to consider alibi is a miscarriage of justice; courts must consider and exercise discretion whether to accord weight even where particulars were not furnished. Appellate review – interference with factual findings justified where courts misapprehend evidence leading to unfair conviction. Procedural non-compliance – non-compliance with procedural provisions does not automatically vitiate conviction absent resulting injustice.
 29 May 2009
Philbert Kadabari vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2005) [2009] TZCA 87 (29 May 2009)
Appellate court dismissed appeal: credible eyewitnesses and unrepudiated cautioned statement proved rape; slight penetration suffices.
Criminal law – Rape – Evidence – Credibility of child complainant and eyewitness corroboration. Criminal law – Sexual offences – Legal sufficiency of slight penetration under section 130(4)(a). Evidence – Admissibility and weight of accused’s cautioned statement when not repudiated. Procedure – PF.3 and medical witness – failure to call doctor not necessarily fatal where other evidence suffices. Appellate practice – Second appeal limited to cases where no evidence supports findings or where there are material misdirections.
 29 May 2009