|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2011 |
|
|
Rape conviction quashed for insufficient evidence and PF.3 irregularity; abduction conviction restored, sentence adjusted for time served.
Criminal law – Rape – requirement of proof of penetration; medical (PF.3) report inadmissible if s.240(3) Evidence Act not complied with; complainant's uncorroborated evidence insufficient where essential elements unproven. Criminal law – Abduction (s.133 Penal Code) – evidence of taking and detention against will sufficient; appellate power under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to revise acquittal.
|
30 September 2011 |
|
|
30 September 2011 |
|
Failure to conduct a voir dire under s.127(2) rendered the child’s sworn evidence inadmissible; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal law – Evidence Act s.127(2) – child witness of tender age – necessity of prior voir dire to determine understanding of oath and sufficient intelligence; failure to comply renders sworn testimony inadmissible; conviction quashed where expunged child evidence is foundational and no sufficient remaining proof exists. Criminal procedure – retrial directed where miscarriage of justice caused by court's procedural error.
|
30 September 2011 |
|
|
30 September 2011 |
|
|
30 September 2011 |
|
Rape conviction quashed for insufficient evidence and improper PF.3 reliance; abduction conviction restored.
Criminal law – Rape – Elements required: penetration, lack of consent, identity of perpetrator; prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt; victim’s uncorroborated testimony insufficient in the circumstances. Evidence – Medical report (PF.3) – Non-compliance with s.240(3) Evidence Act (failure to inform accused of right to call doctor) is a fundamental irregularity making the report inadmissible. Criminal procedure – Appellate jurisdiction – Court may revise lower courts’ findings where misdirections/non-directions exist; invocation of s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to restore conviction. Offence of abduction – Elements satisfied where person taken/detained against will with intent to marry.
|
29 September 2011 |
|
Extension of time granted to serve written submissions after unsuccessful service attempts.
Civil procedure – extension of time to serve written submissions – Rule 10 and Rule 106(7) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – good cause shown by failed service attempts due to holiday and bereavement; unopposed application.
|
29 September 2011 |
|
Court granted extension of time to serve written submissions, finding good cause and ordering service within 14 days.
Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – good cause shown where service attempts frustrated by holiday closure and bereavement-related absence. Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 106(1) and 106(7) – service of written submissions and deemed filing upon grant of extension.
|
29 September 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where visual identification was unreliable and possession of allegedly stolen property was not proved.
Criminal law – armed robbery – visual identification – adequacy and reliability of identification evidence. Criminal law – doctrine of recent possession – requires proof that goods were recently stolen and belong to the complainant. Evidence – ownership/identity of recovered items must be proved before presumption of theft/knowing receipt arises. Appeal – conviction unsafe where essential elements (identification; proof of stolen property) are not established.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification was unreliable and recent-possession inference lacked proof that recovered items belonged to the victim.
Criminal law – armed robbery; identification evidence – adequacy of positive identification at night; doctrine of recent possession – requires proof that recovered items were recently stolen and belonged to the victim; conviction unsafe where identification and ownership of recovered items are not established.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
An application challenging a single-justice decision must be heard by the Full Court, not a single Justice.
Court of Appeal procedure – jurisdiction of a single Justice versus Full Court – application for extension of time to file revision – Rule 60(1), Rule 62(1)(a) Court of Appeal Rules – Article 123 Constitution.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
A single Justice lacked jurisdiction to hear an extension-of-time application; the Full Court must entertain it.
Criminal procedure – Application for extension of time – Jurisdiction of single Justice under Rule 60(1) – Remedy under Rule 62(1)(a) and Article 123 – Full Court competent.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
A single judge lacks jurisdiction to determine matters requiring referral to the Full Court under Rule 62(1)(a).
Court of Appeal – Jurisdiction of single Justice – Article 123(a) Constitution – Rule 62(1)(a) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. Criminal procedure – dissatisfied party’s remedy – referral to Full Court for determination of single-Justice decisions. Procedural irregularity/ignorance of procedure – does not confer jurisdiction on a single Judge where Rules mandate Full Court consideration.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
A single Justice lacks jurisdiction to determine applications challenging a single Justice's criminal decision; referral to the Full Court is required.
Criminal procedure – Jurisdiction of single Justice – Whether a single Justice can determine an application by a person dissatisfied with a single Justice's decision. Constitutional & procedural law – Article 123(a) Constitution; Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, Rule 62(1)(a) – Requirement that such matters be determined by the Full Court. Procedure – Proper route for applications for extension of time/review after a single Justice's decision.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
Leave granted to amend memorandum of appeal to include Registrar's signature due to inadvertence and prompt correction.
Civil procedure – Amendment of appellate pleadings – Leave to amend memorandum of appeal to include Registrar's signature for inadvertent omission. Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 56(1) – Response to a notice of motion should be by an "affidavit in reply"; mislabelling does not necessarily defeat admissibility. Notice of non-contender – acceptance that contest would be futile supports disposal of application by consent. Rule 20(1) – timeframe ordered for filing amended memorandum of appeal (14 days).
|
28 September 2011 |
|
Leave granted to amend memorandum of appeal to insert Registrar's signature after an inadvertent omission.
Civil procedure – Amendment of memorandum of appeal to include Registrar's signature; inadvertent omission; leave to amend under Rule 20(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules; responding affidavit procedure under Rule 56(1); notice of non-contender.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
Insufficient identification, defective charge, and fairness errors (language/interpreter) warrant quashing convictions or retrial.
Criminal law — Identification evidence — requirement to specify source and intensity of light and duration of observation for reliable ID. Criminal law — Recent possession — need for adequate linkage between recovered property and alleged theft before presumption can attach. Criminal procedure — Defective charge — distinction between incurable nullity and curable defects; revisional power to substitute appropriate conviction. Fair trial — Language rights — obligation of trial court to secure an interpreter where accused is not proficient in trial language; failure may render proceedings a nullity. Appellate jurisdiction — Interference with concurrent findings where there are misdirections or miscarriage of justice.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
Appeal allowed: identification and recent-possession evidence were insufficient to uphold an armed robbery conviction.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – need for sufficient particulars (time, source and intensity of light, duration) to sustain ID; Recent possession doctrine – requirement to link recovered property to the alleged theft; Appellate interference permissible where there are misdirections or non-directions on crucial evidence.
|
27 September 2011 |
|
|
23 September 2011 |
|
Conviction unsafe where PF3 and child testimony were improperly admitted; remaining evidence was hearsay — appeal allowed.
Criminal procedure – PF3 medical report – s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – failure to inform accused of right to call report author renders report inadmissible; Evidence – child witnesses – s.127(2) Evidence Act – voir dire and recording mandatory; Criminal procedure – s.210(3) right to have evidence read over – omission curable under s.388 if no prejudice; Sufficiency of evidence – conviction unsafe where medical and child evidence excluded leaving only hearsay.
|
22 September 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where PF3 admission and child‑witness voire dire were irregular and remaining evidence was insufficient.
Criminal procedure — admissibility of medical report — non‑compliance with s.240(3) CrPC — expunged; Evidence — child witnesses — s.127(2) Evidence Act voir dire requirements and recording — non‑compliance fatal unless other sufficient evidence; s.210(3) CrPC omission curable under s.388 CrPC if no prejudice; Conviction overturned for insufficient remaining evidence.
|
22 September 2011 |
|
The applicant's extension request to file a review was dismissed for lack of prospects of success and uncorroborated delay.
Civil procedure — extension of time — Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules; review applications — Rule 66(3) sixty-day rule and Rule 66(1) grounds; requirement to show prospects of success; necessity of corroborative affidavits for institutional or technical causes of delay; unexplained long delay fatal to application.
|
22 September 2011 |
|
Appellant’s rape conviction quashed for lack of evidence of penetration and improper admission of PF3 without section 240(3) safeguards.
Criminal law – Rape – Element of penetration – Proof beyond reasonable doubt required; general statements insufficient. Criminal procedure – Documentary evidence (PF3) – section 240(3) CPA requires court to inform accused of right to require report-maker’s summons and availability for cross-examination. Appeals – Second appeal – appellate interference with findings of fact where misdirection, misapprehension or miscarriage of justice. Sentencing – section 131(3) Penal Code requires life imprisonment for rape of a girl under ten (noting substituted sentence by High Court).
|
22 September 2011 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or prospects of success and gave uncorroborated delay reasons; application dismissed.
Criminal procedure – extension of time under Rule 10 – requirement to show good cause; Review under Rule 66 – applicant must show likelihood of success by pointing to grounds under Rule 66(1); Evidential requirement – material allegations of institutional dysfunction (e.g. prison typing equipment) require corroborating affidavit from responsible officer.
|
21 September 2011 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or prospects of success, and did not substantiate the excuse for delay; application dismissed.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules – Requirement to show good cause and prospects of success for applications to file reviews under Rule 66(1) and (3). Evidence – Necessity to substantiate excuses for delay with corroborating affidavit (e.g., from prison officer) rather than bare assertions.
|
21 September 2011 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or prospects of success for extension to file review; application dismissed.
Civil procedure – enlargement of time – Rule 10 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to show good cause. Review procedure – Rule 66(3) – review application to be filed within 60 days. Applicant must demonstrate prospects of success of intended review (grounds under Rule 66(1)). Evidence – technical delay assertions require corroboration (affidavit from responsible officer).
|
21 September 2011 |
|
|
21 September 2011 |
|
Appellate court quashed rape conviction for lack of proof of penetration and procedural non‑compliance with section 240(3).
Criminal law – Rape – proof of penetration required under section 130(4)(a); Criminal Procedure Act s240(3) – court’s duty to inform accused of right to summon maker of report (PF3) for cross‑examination; Admission of PF3 without compliance with s240(3) invalid; Appellate interference where misapprehension or misdirection on evidence; Penal Code s131(3) – life imprisonment for rape of girl under ten years.
|
21 September 2011 |
|
Defective charge under section 287B did not nullify proceedings; evidence established assault with intent to steal under section 288.
Criminal law – defective charge under section 287B (attempted armed robbery) – whether defect vitiates proceedings; Criminal procedure – magistrate’s power to refuse admissible charge under s129 CPA; Appellate jurisdiction – interference with factual findings on second appeal where misapprehension or miscarriage of justice; Substitution of conviction on revision – assault with intent to steal (s288) substituted for attempted robbery.
|
20 September 2011 |
|
Language barrier and lack of court‑provided interpreter vitiated the trial; retrial ordered and prior proceedings declared nullity.
Criminal procedure — Right to fair trial — Interpreter/language barrier — Duty of trial court to secure interpreter — Failure to provide interpreter vitiates trial — Retrial ordered; proceedings declared nullity.
|
16 September 2011 |