|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2016 |
|
|
Conviction based on unassessed, uncorroborated and inconsistent victim evidence was unsafe and therefore quashed.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Reliance on uncorroborated testimony of victim – Duties under s.127(7) TEA to assess credibility and record reasons; inconsistencies in dates and medical evidence; failure to weigh defence evidence; conviction unsafe and liable to be quashed.
|
17 November 2016 |
|
High Court proceedings on probate matters pending in Primary Courts were quashed for want of jurisdiction and exhibit irregularity.
Civil procedure – admissibility of documents – Order XIII Rule 4 CPC – requirement to endorse admitted exhibits; Probate and administration – jurisdiction of Primary Courts under Fifth Schedule to the Magistrates Courts Act – duty to account (cl.11); Appellate jurisdiction – revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA – quashing proceedings for want of jurisdiction and procedural irregularity.
|
17 November 2016 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction over pending primary-court probate matters and relied on unendorsed exhibits, so proceedings were quashed.
Civil procedure – admissibility of exhibits – mandatory endorsement of admitted documents under Order XIII Rule 4 CPC; Probate and intestacy – jurisdictional limits – Primary Courts’ powers under Fifth Schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act (administration and accounting by administrators); Appellate revision – use of section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to quash proceedings where jurisdictional and procedural irregularities occurred.
|
17 November 2016 |
|
|
4 November 2016 |
| October 2016 |
|
|
High Court's summary rejection of an application without hearing violated the applicant's right to be heard and was set aside.
Civil procedure – natural justice – audi alteram partem – summary rejection of application without hearing – decision a nullity. Appellate jurisdiction – revisional powers under section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act – setting aside High Court order and directing rehearing. Procedure – requirement to notify parties of events affecting their application; condemnation unheard vitiates proceedings.
|
28 October 2016 |
|
Night-time visual identification lacking details on light, distance and familiarity is unsafe; conviction quashed and appellant released.
Criminal law – identification evidence – visual identification at night – necessity to specify source, intensity of light, distance and duration of observation to avoid mistaken identity. Appellate review – misapprehension of evidence – factual findings must be supported by record. Conviction unsafe where identification is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
28 October 2016 |
|
Denial of co-accused cross-examination where they incriminate each other vitiates the trial and warrants a retrial.
Criminal law – Gang rape – joint trial – defence on oath – co-accused giving mutually incriminatory evidence. Right to fair trial – right to make full answer and defence – co-accused entitled to cross-examine each other when evidence is adverse. Evidence Act – scope of cross-examination and testing veracity of witness. Miscarriage of justice – material irregularity vitiating trial – retrial ordered. Appellate jurisdiction – entertaining new ground where irregularity is apparent and affects interests of justice.
|
28 October 2016 |
|
A High Court's suo motu striking out of a plaint without hearing violated the right to be heard and was nullified.
Procedural law — natural justice — right to be heard — court must afford parties opportunity to address any pivotal issue it raises suo motu; Civil procedure — striking out plaint — procedural irregularity renders decision a nullity; Arbitration — question of annexing arbitration 'submission' to pleadings; Relief — nullification of decision and restoration of suit.
|
27 October 2016 |
|
Conviction in sexual offence case quashed where victim’s uncorroborated, delayed testimony lacked recorded reasons and medical evidence was withheld.
Criminal law – Sexual offence – Conviction on uncorroborated victim’s evidence – Requirement under s.127(7) to record reasons for acceptance; delayed disclosure and credibility concerns may necessitate corroboration. Evidence Act s.122 – Adverse inference where prosecution withholds material evidence (medical report/PF3). Criminal Procedure – Trial in absentia after accused absconds – proceeding permissible; misreference to s.226 vs s.227 may be harmless. Charge sheet irregularity – misdescription of punishment provision curable if not prejudicial.
|
27 October 2016 |
|
High Court ruling struck down for deciding a pivotal arbitration attachment issue suo motu without hearing; suit restored.
Civil procedure — judicial conduct — raising pivotal issues suo motu — duty to afford parties hearing (audi alteram partem) — breach renders decision nullity; Arbitration Act/Rules — requirement to annex 'submission' pertains to arbitration petitions; striking out plaint for premature filing; restoration of suit.
|
27 October 2016 |
|
Uncorroborated complainant evidence, unexplained delay and withheld medical proof rendered the rape conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Conviction based solely on complainant’s evidence – s.127(7) Evidence Act requires reasons to be recorded for relying on uncorroborated testimony.* Evidence – Delay in making complaint and inconsistencies may call for corroboration; unexplained failure to call medical evidence (PF3) permits adverse inference under s.122 Evidence Act.* Criminal procedure – Trial in absence of accused who has jumped bail – court may proceed where attendance cannot be secured; reference to wrong statutory provision may be harmless if no prejudice.* Charge-sheet irregularity – incorrect citation of punishment provision curable if accused understood the charge.
|
27 October 2016 |
|
Civil court lacked jurisdiction over a tax-dispute from a warrant of distraint; relief lies in statutory tax appeals forums.
Tax law; jurisdiction — requirement to exhaust statutory remedies under the Income Tax Act; disputes over assessment, liability and warrant of distress are for Tax Appeals Board/Zonal Board/Tribunal; civil court exceeded jurisdiction.
|
27 October 2016 |
|
Failure to prove full loan payment defeated lender’s claim to enforce transfer; unpaid Tshs.50m offset against mesne profits.
Contract – Loan agreement – Condition precedent that full loan be paid before lender acquires security enforcement – failure to prove full payment defeats transfer remedy. Evidence – Evaluation of witness credibility and documentary proof; appellate caution but willingness to re-evaluate where trial court failed adequately to assess contradictory testimony. Mesne profits – Possession and receipt of rent by lender may attract liability to account; need for particulars and documentary proof but equitable offset permissible. Land law/civil procedure – Order of sale not to be made prematurely or without proper legal basis or adequate notice to parties.
|
27 October 2016 |
|
|
26 October 2016 |
|
Conviction quashed because night-time visual identification was unsafe; appellant ordered released.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night – necessity to specify proximity, light source and intensity, length of observation, and prior familiarity. Criminal procedure – Appeal against conviction – Interference with concurrent findings where identification is unsafe. Evidence – Variations between charge particulars and testimony as undermining credibility.
|
26 October 2016 |
|
|
26 October 2016 |
|
A civil court lacked jurisdiction to decide a tax assessment dispute without exhaustion of statutory tax remedies.
Tax law – jurisdiction – whether ordinary civil court may decide tax assessment disputes where Income Tax Act provides objection and appeal fora; Distraint – warrant under s.109(1) – disputes over validity of distraint are rooted in tax liability determinations; Civil procedure – ouster of jurisdiction by statute – special forum exclusivity and requirement to exhaust statutory remedies; Appellate practice – jurisdictional objections may be raised at any stage; Appellate Jurisdiction – revisional power to declare proceedings nullity and set aside judgment.
|
26 October 2016 |
|
|
26 October 2016 |
|
Summary rejection of an application without hearing violates the right to be heard and is a nullity; rehearing ordered.
Administrative and constitutional law – Right to be heard (audi alteram partem); Procedural fairness – summary rejection of applications without hearing is a nullity; Appellate jurisdiction – exercise of revisional powers under s.4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Civil procedure – need for courts to notify parties before disposing of matters set for hearing.
|
25 October 2016 |
|
The applicant's conviction was quashed for a defective robbery charge, lack of lawful appellate transfer, and insufficient evidence.
Criminal procedure – Appellate jurisdiction – requirement of formal transfer under section 45(2) Magistrates' Courts Act – absence renders appellate proceedings nullity. Criminal law – Robbery – charge must allege person against whom threat or violence was directed per section 285 Penal Code and section 135 CPA – omission renders charge defective. Evidence – sufficiency of proof – lack of identification and failure to call key witness undermines conviction. Remedy – powers under section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to quash proceedings and set aside sentence.
|
24 October 2016 |
|
Appeal struck out for failure to implead the Attorney General and Returning Officer, necessary parties affected by the election-tally findings.
Election law — Election petition appeal — Necessary parties — Attorney General and Returning Officer must be impleaded where appeal will affect their rights — Audi alteram partem and competence of appeal; Notice of cross-appeal incompetence.
|
24 October 2016 |
Elections - Election Petitions - Nullification of Elections
Elections - Election Petitions - Joinder of Necessary Parties
Civil Procedure – Appeal – Amendment of Pleadings
|
24 October 2016 |
|
Conviction for rape quashed where uncorroborated victim evidence and withheld medical evidence made conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Rape – Reliance on uncorroborated victim evidence – Requirement for reasons under s.127(7) Evidence Act – Delay in reporting – Failure to call medical witness/PF3 – Adverse inference under s.122 Evidence Act – Trial in absentia/CPA ss.226/227 – Curable irregularity in charge sheet.
|
24 October 2016 |
|
Conviction quashed due to defective robbery charge and lack of proper transfer order to the magistrate.
Criminal law – armed robbery – defective particulars of charge for failing to name the person against whom force or threat was directed – requirements of s.285 Penal Code and s.135 CPA; appellate jurisdiction – absence of transfer order under s.45 Magistrates' Courts Act renders first appellate proceedings null; insufficiency of identification evidence and failure to call key eyewitness – conviction unsafe; quashing of proceedings and setting aside sentence.
|
24 October 2016 |
|
Where lender failed to prove full loan payment, court set aside sale and offset proven payment against mesne profits.
Contract law – performance of contractual conditions – requirement of proof of payment as condition precedent to lender’s remedy. Evidence – appellate review of factual findings – duty to evaluate materially inconsistent witness testimony. Land law/remedies – propriety of ordering sale of land where contractual condition not proved and where sale relief was not pleaded. Mesne profits – entitlement where occupier collects rent; need for proof of quantum and equitable offset against outstanding proven debt.
|
24 October 2016 |
|
Extension of time granted to lodge a supplementary record and submissions where registry delay prevented timely supply of missing documents.
Civil procedure — extension of time — supplementary record under Rule 96(6) — registry delay as sufficient reason to extend time. Evidence — affidavit — personal knowledge vs hearsay — verification requirements. Practice — preliminary objection — Mukisa test; objections raising facts are not competent preliminary objections.
|
23 October 2016 |
|
Conviction quashed where trial court failed to enter a conviction and identification evidence was unsafe.
Criminal procedure – mandatory requirements of judgment – section 235(1) CPA: conviction must be entered before sentencing. Criminal procedure – form of judgment – section 312(2) CPA: judgment must specify offence, section and sentence. Identification evidence – surrounding circumstances and lighting – reliability and safe identification. Appellate jurisdiction – section 4(2) AJA – nullification of proceedings and setting aside sentence where judgment is invalid.
|
20 October 2016 |
|
|
20 October 2016 |
|
Alleged illegality in the intended appeal can justify extension of time despite inordinate delay.
Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — Applicant must show good cause and account for delay — Negligence of counsel not ordinarily sufficient — Alleged illegality (fraud, forgery, misrepresentation, improper procurement of consent) may constitute sufficient cause to extend time to file application for leave to appeal.
|
20 October 2016 |
|
Failure to enter a conviction before sentencing renders the judgment void; Court nullified proceedings and set aside sentence.
Criminal law – armed robbery – sufficiency of identification evidence – requirements for safe visual identification (Waziri Amani). Criminal procedure – mandatory entry of conviction before sentence – compliance with section 235(1) CPA. Criminal procedure – judgment must specify offence and statute – section 312(2) CPA. Appellate jurisdiction – use of section 4(2) to nullify proceedings and set aside sentence where judgment is void.
|
20 October 2016 |
|
Court granted extension to file Reference, finding good cause from prompt action after withdrawing a defective filing.
Civil procedure – Extension of time under Rule 10 – "Good cause" is relative; Court considers length of delay, reasons for delay and prejudice; prompt action and prior grant of extension may establish good cause; negligence of counsel not automatically good cause.
|
20 October 2016 |
|
Court granted extension to file a Reference, finding good cause from oversight and prompt action by the applicant.
Civil procedure – Extension of time under Rule 10 – Good cause required; factors to consider: length of delay, reasons for delay, prejudice to respondent – Oversight in attaching prior extension order can constitute sufficient explanation if applicant acts promptly.
|
20 October 2016 |
|
|
19 October 2016 |
|
|
18 October 2016 |
|
Appeal struck out as incompetent for incomplete record of appeal; no costs where defect raised suo motu.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Record of appeal – Incomplete record (missing pages of High Court typed proceedings) – Contravention of Rule 96(1)(d) Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Appeal incompetent and struck out – Costs: none where defect raised suo motu.
|
18 October 2016 |
|
The applicant cannot use review to relitigate merits; review requires a self‑evident error on the record.
Review — Rule 66(1)(a): scope limited to manifest, self‑evident errors on the face of the record; Review is not an appeal. Village land — lawful allocation: allocation to WMA must comply with Village Land Act and WMA Regulations; absence of original minutes/records means allocation not proved. Evidence — identification exhibit insufficient without original record; proper proof of village meeting minutes required. Trespass — declaration depends on lawful allocation being established.
|
18 October 2016 |
|
Review under Rule 66(1)(a) requires a self‑evident error; failure to prove lawful land allocation is an appeal, not review.
Civil procedure — Review under Rule 66(1)(a) — manifest error on the face of the record — narrow scope; not an appeal. Land law — allocation of village land — requirement for Village Council and Village Assembly involvement under Village Land Act. Wildlife Conservation — establishment of WMAs — necessity of proper procedures and evidence. Evidence — need to tender original minutes/records to prove village resolutions and lawful allocation.
|
18 October 2016 |
|
Ignorance of procedure and non-apparent alleged illegality do not justify extension of time to seek leave to appeal.
Civil procedure – extension of time to apply for leave to appeal; requirements: account for delay, absence of inordinate delay, diligence; ignorance of procedure is not good cause; alleged illegality must be manifest on the face of the record (Lyamuya; Valambia); exercise of discretion guided by Mbogo factors.
|
18 October 2016 |
|
Appeal marked withdrawn for lack of mandatory High Court leave; withdrawal granted under Rule 4(2)(a) with no order as to costs.
Civil procedure – Withdrawal of appeal – Appeal marked withdrawn under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – omission of mandatory prior High Court leave in record. Costs – No order as to costs where withdrawal is supported or not opposed by respondents.
|
18 October 2016 |
|
Court upheld rape conviction despite expunged medical report, finding the victim's credible testimony sufficient.
Criminal law – Rape – s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act non-compliance; PF3 expunged; medical evidence not essential where other credible evidence exists; s.127(7) Evidence Act – victim's uncorroborated evidence may suffice if credible; defective charge curable under s.388(1) CPA; s.226 CPA – trial in absence where accused absent without lawful cause; appellate restraint on concurrent findings.
|
18 October 2016 |
|
Extension of time refused: ignorance of procedure not good cause; alleged illegality must appear on the record.
Civil procedure – extension of time to apply for leave to appeal; discretion to extend time – factors: length and reason for delay, arguability and prejudice (Mbogo); ignorance of procedure not good cause; illegality as ground for extension must be apparent on the face of the record (Valambia; Lyamuya).
|
18 October 2016 |
|
Ignorance of procedure and non-apparent illegality do not justify extension of time to seek leave to appeal.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – enlargement to file application for leave to appeal – discretionary exercise guided by length and reason for delay, existence of arguable appeal and prejudice (Mbogo). Ignorance of law/procedure is not good cause for extension. Illegality as ground for extension – must be of sufficient importance and apparent on the face of the record (Valambia; Lyamuya).
|
18 October 2016 |
|
Victim’s credible testimony and supporting witnesses upheld rape conviction despite PF3 expungement and minor charge defect.
Criminal law – sexual offence – non-compliance with s.240(3) CPA – PF3 expunged; defective charge curable under s.388(1) CPA; accused’s absence and s.226 CPA; victim’s uncorroborated testimony admissible under s.127(7) Evidence Act; concurrent findings of fact on identity and credibility upheld.
|
18 October 2016 |
|
The applicant’s review was dismissed as an impermissible re‑argument of appeal issues, not a shown manifest error.
Civil procedure — Review under Rule 66(1)(a) — scope limited to manifest, self‑evident errors on the face of the record; not a rehearing or appeal. Administrative/village land — proof of lawful allocation — requirement to tender original meeting records/minutes. Trespass — determination depends on proof of valid allocation and lawful occupation.
|
17 October 2016 |
|
Review application dismissed: alleged errors were merits of appeal, not self‑evident reviewable errors.
Civil procedure — Review under Rule 66(1)(a) — Manifest error on the face of the record — Limited scope of review; not a vehicle to re-open merits or substitute for appeal — Proof required for lawful allocation of village land — Role of Village Council/Assembly and Wildlife Management Area regulations.
|
17 October 2016 |
|
Conviction for rape upheld despite expunged medical report; victim's credible testimony sufficient for conviction.
Criminal law – Rape – Admissibility of PF3 – Non‑compliance with s.240(3) CPA renders PF3 of no evidential value; victim’s uncorroborated testimony may suffice under s.127(7) Evidence Act; defective charge citing wrong subsection curable under s.388(1) CPA; trial validly proceeded in accused’s absence under s.226 CPA; concurrent findings of trial and High Courts will not be interfered with absent misapprehension or miscarriage of justice.
|
13 October 2016 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove unlawful possession beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies.
Wildlife Conservation Act – Unlawful possession of government trophy – requirement that prosecution prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Burden of proof – section 100(1) (exceptions) vs general criminal burden; improper judicial statement shifting burden not fatal where conviction rests on prosecution evidence. Evidence – material inconsistencies in dates and failure to connect exhibits or call available witnesses create reasonable doubt. Exhibits – endorsement/disposal of perishable exhibits by nearby primary court acceptable where district court unavailable.
|
4 October 2016 |
| September 2016 |
|
|
Foreign documents need one condition from s38(2)(a) and one from (b); US state certifications insufficient.
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act s.38(1)-(3) — authentication of foreign documents — requirement that a document satisfy one condition in s.38(2)(a) and one in s.38(2)(b) (alternative combinations) — documents certified/sealed by sub‑national authorities (U.S. States/districts) not sufficient — affidavits and foreign documentary evidence in criminal trials; viva voce evidence requirement and right to fair hearing (s.196 Criminal Procedure Act).
|
15 September 2016 |
|
Foreign documents require country‑level authentication; state seals and unauthenticated affidavits are inadmissible.
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, s.38(1), (2)(a) & (b) – authentication and admissibility of foreign documents – one condition from (a) plus one from (b) suffices (listed alternative combinations). Interpretation – ‘foreign country’ requires country-level authentication; state-level seals of a federal state (e.g. U.S. States) do not alone satisfy s.38(2). Evidence – affidavits obtained abroad are inadmissible in ordinary criminal proceedings absent proper authentication and where they infringe the accused’s right to cross-examination (s.196 CPA; Raphael v Republic).
|
15 September 2016 |
|
Ignorance of appellate procedure does not justify extension; illegality must be apparent on the record to warrant extra time.
Civil procedure – extension of time – requirements: account for delay, diligence, non-inordinate delay; Ignorance of law is no good cause; Alleged illegality must be apparent on the face of the record to justify extension (Lyamuya; Valambia; Mbogo).
|
13 September 2016 |