|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2011 |
|
|
Appeal struck out because the notice of appeal cited a non‑existent High Court appeal number.
Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal must correctly identify the High Court decision complained of – Rule 61(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 – Defective notice citing non‑existent appeal number is fatal – Appeal struck out.
|
25 December 2011 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal where impugned High Court order appeared problematic and possibly illegal.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution under Rule 9(2)(b) – Appeal pending – Illegality and breach of natural justice (audi alteram partem) as good cause – Execution of problematic decrees to be stayed pending appellate determination.
|
23 December 2011 |
| November 2011 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: unsafe night identification, improperly invoked recent possession, and inadmissible cautioned statements led to quashing convictions.
Criminal law – Visual identification at night – necessity to prove source/intensity of light, distance and duration of observation; Recent possession – requirements to prove recovery, positive identification and recent theft; Admissibility of cautioned statements – compliance with statutory time limits and procedural safeguards (sections 50, 51, 57(4), section 169 consequences).
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Convictions quashed: unreliable night identification, incorrect use of recent-possession and inadmissible cautioned statements.
Criminal law – armed robbery – visual identification – need for detailed description of lighting, distance and duration of observation for reliable ID (Waziri Amani factors). Criminal law – recent possession – elements: possession, positive identification of property, recent theft from complainant, subject-matter of charge. Evidence – cautioned/confessional statements – compliance with sections 50, 51 and 57 mandatory; non-compliance renders statements inadmissible and expungeable. Appeal – convictions unsafe where identification, possession and confession evidence are defective.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where primary identification and child evidence were unreliable or admitted unlawfully.
Criminal law – identification evidence at night – reliability of visual ID; Credibility – contradictions between police statement and trial testimony; Evidence Act s.127(2) – voire dire for child witnesses mandatory; Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) – rights concerning PF3; Offence elements – armed robbery (offensive weapon) and gang rape (multiple perpetrators and proof of penetration); Safeguard against wrongful conviction where primary evidence is discredited.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Appellants' convictions quashed due to unsafe visual identification, improperly conducted identification parade and a worthless confession.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual recognition and familiarity; inadequate lighting and inconsistent witness accounts render identification unsafe. Police procedure – Identification parade – Rule 2(b), Police General Order No.231; parades must not be conducted by officers below Sub-Inspector. Criminal procedure – Confession – Vague or disassociative statements lack evidential value. Conviction unsafe where key identification and confession evidence fail.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Rape conviction quashed where child witnesses' evidence was admitted without complying with section 127(2) and penetration was not proved.
Evidence Act s.127(2) – child witnesses – court must form and record opinions whether child understands nature of oath, is sufficiently intelligent and understands duty to speak truth – mandatory compliance required. Effect of non‑compliance – child’s evidence may be expunged and conviction may be vulnerable where that evidence is essential. Penal Code s.130(4)(a) – proof of rape requires penetration however slight; medical signs alone may be insufficient to prove penetration.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Rape conviction quashed where medical report was improperly admitted and penetration—the essential element—was not proved.
Criminal procedure – admissibility of medical report (PF3) – duty to give accused opportunity to object and to explain right under s.240(3) CPA to call the medical officer – non-compliance leads to expungement. Sexual offences – rape – prosecution must prove penetration (however slight) – bare assertion of 'rape' insufficient. Evidence – identification and credibility of witnesses insufficient in absence of proof of essential elements.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
In‑camera omission curable; conviction quashed because prosecution evidence was inconsistent and inherently improbable.
Criminal law – Rape – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Credibility undermined by inconsistencies, hearsay and failure to tender recovered property; Criminal Procedure Act s.186(3) (in‑camera requirement) – the word "shall" not invariably mandatory; omissions curable under s.388 if no injustice; Evidence Act s.122 – inferences from natural course of events.
|
26 November 2011 |
|
The appellant's criminal appeal was struck out for filing a notice of appeal citing the wrong High Court appeal number.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Validity – A notice of appeal institutes a criminal appeal under rule 61(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 – Wrong citation of High Court appeal number renders notice defective and appeal incompetent.* Procedural irregularity – Appeals struck out where no properly instituted appeal exists.
|
25 November 2011 |
|
A notice of appeal that misstates or omits required particulars is incurably defective and renders the appeal incompetent.
Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 61(1),(2),(7) – Mandatory requirements for notice of appeal – Notice must identify the specific decision, state nature of conviction and sentence, and follow prescribed form – Omnibus or misstated notice incurably defective – Appeal struck out as incompetent.
|
24 November 2011 |
|
A prisoner’s notice of appeal lodged late and without prison officer endorsement is incompetent and the appeal is struck out.
Criminal procedure – Appeals – Time for lodging notice of appeal – Rule 61(1) Court of Appeal Rules (1979) – Prisoners’ notices must be channelled via officer-in-charge with endorsement – signature date is not substitute for endorsement – late notice renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
24 November 2011 |
|
Nighttime visual identification was insufficiently established; familiarity alone cannot validate unreliable identification.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night – need to state source and intensity of light, distance, room size and duration – familiarity insufficient where conditions not conducive – unsafe conviction warranting quash of conviction.
|
23 November 2011 |
|
An appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out if the notice of appeal fails to correctly identify the High Court decision being challenged.
Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal – Mandatory requirements of rule 61(1) and format under rule 61(7) – notice must correctly state the High Court decision number. Competence of appeal – Defective notice of appeal renders appeal incompetent; subsequent memorandum cannot cure defect. Preliminary objection – Point of law may be raised at any stage.
|
23 November 2011 |
|
A defective notice of appeal citing a non-existent High Court appeal number vitiates the appeal and warrants striking out.
Court of Appeal procedure – Notice of appeal – Requirement under rule 61(1) – Necessity of correctly identifying the High Court decision – Defective notice citing non-existent appeal number – Appeal struck out.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
Failure to hear appellant on appeal under s.366 CPA renders High Court decision null; rehearing ordered.
Criminal appeal – right to be heard – audi alteram partem – appellate court must afford appellant opportunity to address court – section 366(1) Criminal Procedure Act – failure to hear appellant renders decision a nullity and warrants rehearing.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
Retrial ordered after medical evidence was expunged for s.240(3) non‑compliance, leaving rape unproven on the record.
Criminal law – Rape of infant – need to prove penetration; medical evidence (PF3) material to proof. Criminal procedure – Section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – mandatory duty to inform accused of right to require report-maker to be summoned; non-compliance may lead to expunging report. Evidence – Uncorroborated testimony of interested witness insufficient where essential elements (penetration) are not otherwise established. Remedy – Retrial ordered where procedural omission occasioned failure of justice and removal of crucial evidence.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where penetration was not proved and medical report was improperly admitted under section 240(3).
Criminal law – Rape – Proof of offence – Penetration (however slight) required to prove sexual intercourse under section 130(4)(a). Evidence – PF3/medical report – section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – trial court must inform accused of right to have author summoned; non‑compliance renders PF3 unacted upon/expunged. Evidence – Hearsay and inadmissible admissions – statements to relatives and to militiamen are of little or no probative value. Appeal – Insufficiency of prosecution evidence – conviction quashed where essential elements not proved and key exhibits improperly admitted.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
Omission of the High Court case number from a notice of appeal is a fatal defect rendering the appeal incompetent.
Court of Appeal Rules – Notice of appeal – mandatory particulars (High Court centre, judge, date, case number) – omission of case number renders notice defective and appeal incompetent; Fatal irregularity – appeal struck out; Remedy – appellant may seek extension of time to file proper notice of appeal.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
A joint notice of appeal must be duly signed by all appellants; failure renders the appeal incompetent and struck out.
Court of Appeal Rules (1979) — Rule 61 — Notice of appeal — Joint notice of appeal — Signature requirement — Procedural compliance — Defective instituting document — Incompetence of appeal — Appeal struck out.
|
19 November 2011 |
|
Night‑time identification without particulars of light, distance or conditions is unsafe; conviction quashed.
Criminal law – Visual identification at night – necessity to prove source and intensity of light, distance, room size and duration; familiarity of witness not decisive unless conditions conducive; conviction unsafe where possibility of mistaken identity not excluded.
|
19 November 2011 |
|
The court quashed the applicant's rape and sodomy convictions due to unreliable testimony and an inadmissible confession.
Criminal law – Rape and unnatural offence – requirement to prove penetration – evaluation of witness credibility – contradictions and implausibility of prosecutrix's account; Evidence – admissibility of cautioned/confessional statement – compliance with section 50 time limits and section 57(4) safeguards; Documentary medical evidence – compliance with statutory formality (s.240(3)); Criminal procedure – duty of first appellate court to critically re-evaluate evidence.
|
19 November 2011 |
|
Trial in a court lacking jurisdiction is void; retrial is discretionary and the D.P.P. decides whether to prosecute anew.
Criminal procedure – Jurisdiction – trial of economic offences – effect of D.P.P. certificate under s.12(3) of the Economic and Organised Crimes Control Act; trial in wrong subordinate court renders proceedings void. Criminal procedure – Retrial – retrial not automatic where original trial illegal; guided by interests of justice and authorities such as Fatehali Manji. Prosecutorial discretion – Decision to commence fresh prosecution after void trial rests with the D.P.P. under Article 59B(4).
|
18 November 2011 |
|
Where D.P.P. certifies trial venue, subordinate court’s trial is void and retrial is discretionary for the D.P.P.
Criminal procedure – Jurisdiction – Economic offences triable by High Court/Economic Crimes Court – D.P.P. certificate under s.12(3) EOCCA specifying trial in Resident Magistrate's Court – lack of jurisdiction where trial held in District Court. Retrial – Principles from Fatehali Manji – retrial not automatic; ordered only if interests of justice require. Prosecutorial discretion – Decision to reprosecute left to D.P.P. under Article 59B(4).
|
18 November 2011 |
|
A defective notice of appeal missing the correct High Court case number renders the appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Rule 61(1) and (7) Court of Appeal Rules – notice must include High Court centre, judge, date and case number (Form B); defective notice renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
18 November 2011 |
|
A defective charge naming a different victim than the evidence showed rendered the armed robbery conviction unsustainable.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Particulars of offence – Identity of victim and locus of violence must correspond to evidence – Defective charge – Burden on prosecution to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction quashed.
|
18 November 2011 |
|
A defective notice of appeal citing the wrong High Court case number renders a criminal appeal incompetent and struck out.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Compliance with Rule 61(1) and (7) Court of Appeal Rules 1979 – Form B mandatory particulars – Wrong High Court case number renders notice defective – Defective notice incapacitates appeal – Appeal struck out.
|
17 November 2011 |
|
Weak, contradictory circumstantial evidence and procedural failings warranted quashing the appellant's murder conviction and death sentence.
Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – sufficiency and reliability – alibi – accused not obliged to prove alibi – failure to call material witnesses – adverse inference – improper admission of evidence contrary to s.289(2) – conviction quashed.
|
17 November 2011 |
|
Convictions based on uncorroborated nocturnal visual identification were unsafe and therefore quashed.
Criminal law – visual identification – identification at night during an armed mob attack – requirement for caution and proof of all aids to unmistaken identification. Evidence – credibility – inconsistencies between witnesses and failure of one witness to identify accused undermine visual identification. Procedure – reliance on uncorroborated identification may render convictions unsafe.
|
15 November 2011 |
|
A conviction resting solely on uncorroborated night-time visual identification of the appellant was unsafe and quashed.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification – Night-time recognition requires clear evidence on source and intensity of light, duration and credibility of witnesses; identification alone, without corroboration, is unreliable. Criminal procedure – First appeal – Duty of a first appellate court to re-evaluate evidence on a re-hearing and not to rely on findings from unrelated appeals. Evidence – Delay in arrest and absence of possession or home search can undermine prosecution case and witness credibility.
|
15 November 2011 |
|
An application for stay of execution rendered moot by striking out the Notice of Appeal must be struck out and costs awarded to the respondent.
Civil procedure – stay of execution – where Notice of Appeal has been struck out, stay application becomes moot and must be struck out rather than withdrawn under Rule 58(1). Civil procedure – withdrawal of application – Rule 58(1) inapplicable where underlying appeal basis no longer exists. Civil procedure – service of Notice of Appeal – failure to serve within prescribed time may lead to striking out and render related applications otiose. Costs – respondent awarded costs where applicants’ stay application rendered unsupportable by prior ruling.
|
15 November 2011 |
|
A decision made suo motu without hearing the parties is an illegality justifying retrospective extension of time and leave to appeal.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Where impugned decision is marred by illegality (appellant condemned unheard) this constitutes special circumstance warranting retrospective extension of time.* Appellate jurisdiction – Leave to appeal – Illegality of decision (breach of natural justice by decision suo motu) may justify grant of leave to appeal.* Natural justice – Right to be heard – A decision made on a point not canvassed by the parties and decided by the judge suo motu renders the decision susceptible to challenge for illegality.
|
15 November 2011 |
|
A decree dated differently from the judgment renders the High Court appeal invalid; proceedings quashed and appeal struck out.
Civil procedure — Decree must bear date of judgment (Order 20, Rule 7) — Memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by copy of decree (Order 39, Rule 1(1)) — Mandatory requirements — Defective decree vitiates appeal — Court’s suo motu power and revisional powers under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to quash proceedings.
|
15 November 2011 |
|
A decree not bearing the judgment date renders the High Court appeal invalid and proceedings a nullity.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Requirement that memorandum of appeal to High Court be accompanied by copy of decree – Order 39 r.1(1) C.P.C.; Decree must bear date of judgment – Order 20 r.7 C.P.C. – Defective decree renders High Court appeal invalid – Court of Appeal revisional powers (s.4(2) A.J.A.) to quash proceedings.
|
15 November 2011 |
|
Trial conducted by a court lacking jurisdiction was nullified; the decision to retry is left to the D.P.P. to avoid potential injustice.
Criminal procedure — Jurisdiction — Section 12(3) Economic and Organised Crimes Control Act — D.P.P. certificate directing trial by Resident Magistrate — Proceedings in court lacking jurisdiction are null and void; Retrial — discretionary — ordered only if interests of justice require balancing fairness to accused and public; combining counts triable by different courts improper without legal sanction.
|
14 November 2011 |
|
Identification evidence was not watertight; appellate courts must independently re-evaluate and cannot rely on findings from other appeals.
Criminal law – Visual identification – evidence of weakest kind; requirement to prove source, intensity and duration of light and eliminate mistaken identity; appellate duty on re-hearing to independently evaluate evidence; failure to address contradictions and delay in arrest undermines identification.
|
12 November 2011 |
|
A decree whose date does not match the judgment invalidates the appeal and renders High Court proceedings a nullity.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the decree – Order 39, Rule 1(1) C.P.C.; Civil procedure – Decree must bear the date judgment was pronounced – Order 20, Rule 7 C.P.C.; Defective decree (date mismatch) invalidates appeal and renders High Court proceedings a nullity; Revisional jurisdiction – Appellate Court may quash proceedings under section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Appeal struck out; no costs.
|
12 November 2011 |
|
Being condemned unheard (illegality) justifies extension of time and grant of leave to appeal.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Leave to appeal — Illegality — Decision reached suo motu on res judicata — Condemnation unheard — Breach of natural justice — Illegality as sufficient reason to extend time and grant leave to appeal.
|
12 November 2011 |
|
Conviction based solely on weak, inconsistent visual identification at night was unsafe and was quashed.
Criminal law – Visual identification evidence – identification at night requires clear description of aids to identification; contradictions and implausible witness testimony render identification unreliable – conviction unsafe and quashed.
|
12 November 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where visual and voice identification were unreliable and failed to exclude mistaken identity.
Criminal law – armed robbery – identification evidence – visual identification under lamp/torch light – voice identification – Waziri Amani requirements – reliability and elimination of mistaken identity – conviction unsafe.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
A notice of appeal filed after 14 days from judgment is incompetent absent a prior extension; time runs from the judgment date.
Criminal procedure – Appeal time limits – Rule 61(1) Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules – 14-day period for lodging notice of appeal runs from date of High Court judgment, not from awareness. Competence of appeal – Notice of appeal lodged out of time is incompetent unless prior extension of time obtained under s.11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act or Court of Appeal Rules. Preliminary objection – Appropriate remedy to challenge late notice of appeal; striking out of incompetent appeal. Custody considerations – Court may direct expedited determination of extension applications where appellant has been in prolonged remand custody.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
The applicant’s notice of appeal filed after 14 days was incompetent; time runs from the date of judgment, not awareness.
Criminal procedure – Appeals – Time limits – Rule 61(1) Court of Appeal Rules (1979) – 14-day period for lodging notice of appeal runs from date of High Court judgment, not from appellant’s awareness – Notice lodged out of time is incompetent unless prior extension obtained under s.11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act or Court Rules.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
Convictions quashed where identification was unsafe due to darkness and failure to name assailants at earliest opportunity.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Requirement that all possibilities of mistaken identity be eliminated; night-time incidents and lack of evidence as to lighting undermine identification; failure to name suspect at earliest opportunity weakens reliability; reliance on Abdallah bin Wendo and Waziri Amani.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
Conduct amounting to restraint and exposure can constitute the "threat" element of attempted rape; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – attempted rape – elements of offence under section 132(2)(a) – "threat" may be proved by conduct; corroboration – victim’s evidence corroborated by witness who found accused on top of victim; cautioned statement – inadmissible timing irrelevant where court did not rely on it.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
After High Court refused to extend time to appeal, the appellant must apply to the Court of Appeal for extension before lodging an appeal.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to file notice of appeal – concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and Court of Appeal to extend time – requirement to apply to the Court of Appeal for extension after High Court refusal (s.11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Court Rules r.44/ r.47/r.10).
|
9 November 2011 |
|
High Court dismissed appeal without hearing the applicant; proceedings quashed and rehearing ordered.
Criminal procedure – Appeal – Right to be heard (audi alteram partem) – Section 366(1) Criminal Procedure Act – Failure to afford appellant opportunity to address High Court – Decision a nullity – Quashing of High Court proceedings and order for rehearing.
|
8 November 2011 |
|
An appeal lacking a proper notice identifying the decision appealed against is incompetent and struck out.
Criminal procedure – Appeal competence – Rule 61 Court of Appeal Rules – Notice of appeal must identify decision, court, case number, presiding judge and date – Non‑compliance renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
8 November 2011 |
|
|
7 November 2011 |
|
|
7 November 2011 |
|
Conviction based on non-watertight visual identification and subsequent recognition at a dispensary is unsafe and must be quashed.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification must be watertight; special caution where conviction rests substantially on identification (Waziri Amani principle). Identification – Subsequent recognition at a hospital/dispensary due to a wound is distinct from contemporaneous identification at the scene and may be insufficient without prior descriptive particulars. Evidence – Inconsistencies and implausibilities weaken prosecution case; benefit of doubt to accused where reasonable doubt remains.
|
4 November 2011 |