|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| May 2016 |
|
|
Application for extension of time struck out for failure to disclose the Court of Appeal civil appeal number.
Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 and Rule 106(1) – Requirement to disclose the Court of Appeal civil appeal number – failure to disclose a material identifier is fatal and justifies striking out the application; applicants may reapply when appeal is called.
|
24 May 2016 |
|
Failure to disclose the Court of Appeal appeal number renders an extension application defective and subject to striking out.
Court of Appeal — extension of time — Rules 10 and 106(1) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — procedural compliance — disclosure of appeal number essential — defective application struck out — leave to reapply when appeal is called — no costs.
|
24 May 2016 |
|
A procedural citation defect does not bar hearing an extension application; Court prioritised access to justice and dismissed the objection.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 10 (extension of time) – omission of reference to Court decisions – likely printing/error omission; Rule 2 (substantive justice) – used to avoid technical bar; preliminary objection on wrong citation – dismissed; access to justice and judicial duty under Article 107A.
|
24 May 2016 |
|
A factual dispute about service cannot succeed as a preliminary objection; objection dismissed for being misconceived.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – must raise a pure point of law; factual disputes not appropriate (Mukisa Biscuit principle). Service of process – affidavit of process server constitutes prima facie proof; denial raises factual issue. Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – respondent must specify alleged breached rule when challenging service or timing.
|
24 May 2016 |
|
A preliminary objection relying on disputed facts about service and unspecified rule breaches is misconceived and dismissed.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Must raise a pure point of law (Mukisa test) – Not appropriate where factual disputes (e.g., service) exist. Civil procedure – Service of process – Affidavit of service creates factual issue not determinable on preliminary objection. Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Alleged breaches require specification of the particular rule; failure to do so renders objection untenable.
|
24 May 2016 |
|
Conviction quashed where visual identification was unsafe and a caution statement was unlawfully recorded and improperly admitted.
Criminal law – visual identification – evidence of light source and intensity, distance and descriptive particulars necessary to make visual identification reliable. Criminal procedure – caution statements – compliance with CPA ss.50 and 51; recording within four hours or with authorized extension; documents must be admitted before being read in court. Appeal – second appeal interference where misapprehension of evidence causes miscarriage of justice; trial court’s credibility findings subject to appellate scrutiny in such circumstances.
|
23 May 2016 |
|
Review application struck out for non‑compliance with Court of Appeal Rules on notice, affidavit and service.
Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 48(1)&(2) and Form A — notice of motion formalities; Rule 66(4) — service within fourteen days; one order per notice; affidavit registry formalities; striking out for procedural non-compliance.
|
20 May 2016 |
|
An application for extension of time must disclose the appeal number; failure to do so renders the application liable to be struck out.
Civil procedure – extension of time – application under Rule 10 and Rule 106(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – procedural compliance – necessity to disclose appeal number – omission grounds for striking out application.
|
20 May 2016 |
|
Failure to state the civil appeal number was a fatal procedural defect, warranting striking out the extension application.
Court of Appeal – extension of time – Rule 106(1) and Rule 10 – procedural compliance – necessity to state appeal number – omission fatal – application struck out; leave may be sought when appeal is called.
|
20 May 2016 |
|
Court dismisses objection to Rule 10 citation, treating omission as error and orders application to proceed to merits.
Court of Appeal Rules — Extension of time — Whether Rule 10 (2009) applies to decisions of the Court — omission likely printing/drafting error — Rule 2 and substantive justice — preliminary objection on wrong citation dismissed.
|
20 May 2016 |
|
Court dismissed preliminary objection and allowed extension application to proceed, construing Rule 10 to avoid barring access to justice.
Civil procedure – extension of time – construction of Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – omission of Court’s decisions likely inadvertent – Rule 2 and substantive justice permit curing citation omission – preliminary objection dismissed.
|
20 May 2016 |
|
Failure to state the correct offence in the notice of appeal renders the appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal – Rule 68(2) Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Mandatory requirement to state the nature of conviction – Failure to state correct offence is fatal – Sub‑rule (7)/Form B substantial compliance – Fatally defective notice renders appeal incompetent and is struck out.
|
20 May 2016 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or Rule 66(1) grounds; extension of time to file review was dismissed.
Criminal procedure – Extension of time – application under Rules 10 and 48(1) – requirement to show good cause. Review applications – Rule 66(1) – permissible grounds: manifest error on face of record; deprivation of hearing; decision nullity; lack of jurisdiction; judgment procured by fraud/perjury – must be pleaded for review. Evidential requirement – excuses for delay (e.g., reliance on Prison Authority, unrepresented status) require corroboration. Discretionary relief – court may refuse extension where no prima facie prospects of succeeding on review are shown.
|
20 May 2016 |
|
|
20 May 2016 |
|
Applicant’s appeal judgment vacated because he was denied legal representation on appeal; Registrar directed to assign counsel.
Criminal procedure — Review under Rule 66(1)(b) — Deprivation of opportunity to be heard — Right to legal representation as part of fair hearing (Article 13(6)(a)); s.310 CPA and s.3 Legal Aid Act — Vacancy of judgment where appellant denied counsel; referral to Full Bench not competent and court functus officio.
|
20 May 2016 |
|
Application for review struck out for failure to comply with Court of Appeal Rules on notice of motion, affidavit and service.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Rule 48(1),(2) and Form A compliance; Rule 66(4) service within 14 days; notice of motion formalities; affidavit lodgement and registry endorsement; competency of application — preliminary objection and striking out for procedural defects.
|
19 May 2016 |
|
Incorrectly stating the conviction in the notice of appeal renders the appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Rule 68(1),(2),(7) — Notice of appeal must state nature of conviction and conform to Form B — Failure to state correct offence is a fatal defect — Incompetent appeal liable to be struck out.
|
19 May 2016 |
|
A notice of appeal misstating the nature of conviction is fatally defective and renders the appeal incompetent.
Criminal procedure — Appeal — Notice of appeal — Requirement under Rule 68(2) to state nature of conviction — Mandatory compliance with Form B under Rule 68(7) — Failure to state correct offence is fatal — Incompetent appeal struck out.
|
19 May 2016 |
|
Applicant’s unsupported reliance on being unrepresented and prison dependence failed to show good cause or Rule 66(1) grounds for extension.
Criminal procedure – Extension of time (Rule 10) – Application for review – Applicant must show good cause and a factual account for delay. Review – Permissible grounds limited by Rule 66(1): manifest error on face of record; denial of hearing; decision nullity; lack of jurisdiction; judgment procured by fraud or perjury. Prisoner litigant – Being unrepresented or dependent on Prison Authority, without supporting evidence, insufficient to establish good cause. Requirement to demonstrate prospects of success on the substantive review grounds when seeking extension of time.
|
19 May 2016 |
|
A preliminary objection relying on disputed service facts fails where affidavit evidence of service exists and no specific rule is identified.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Must raise a pure point of law (Mukisa test) – Disputed facts (service of process) not competent ground for preliminary objection – Affidavit of process server as proof of service – Failure to specify breached Court of Appeal Rule renders objection untenable.
|
19 May 2016 |
|
Identification evidence was unreliable and the caution statement was unlawfully recorded and admitted, so conviction was quashed.
Criminal law – robbery with violence – reliance on visual identification by neighbours – requirements for light intensity, distance and description to make identification watertight. Criminal procedure – cautioned statement – recording within statutory period (s.50) and extension (s.51) – inadmissibility if recorded unlawfully. Evidence – reading documents before formal admission prejudicial and contrary to procedure. Appeal – second appeal permissible where misapprehension of evidence causes miscarriage of justice.
|
19 May 2016 |
|
Denial of legal-aid on appeal amounts to denial of fair hearing; prior judgment vacated and appeal re-admitted for rehearing.
Criminal procedure — Review under Rule 66(1) — Distinction between review and appeal — Grounds attacking weight of evidence are appeal grounds, not review grounds; Right to fair hearing — deprivation of legal-aid counsel on appeal when counsel was provided at trial constitutes denial of opportunity to be heard and justifies review; Legal aid — Registrar’s duty under Legal Aid (Criminal Proceedings) Act s.3 to assign counsel where in the interests of justice; Court procedure — Court cannot refer individual case to Full Bench and is functus officio after delivering judgment.
|
19 May 2016 |
|
An out-of-time appeal is incompetent and should be struck out, not dismissed; Court of Appeal quashed the dismissal order.
Criminal procedure – appeal filed out of time – distinction between striking out and dismissal of an appeal – competency of appeals; Civil procedure – service of process – deemed proper where summons was served but refused – Rule 63(2) invoked; Appellate jurisdiction – exercise of revisional powers under section 4(3) AJA to correct procedural error.
|
18 May 2016 |
| April 2016 |
|
|
Delay in receiving judgment copies can justify extending time for an applicant to file a stay of execution.
Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirement of sufficient cause – delay in supply of judgment/decree as sufficient cause. Civil procedure – ex parte proceedings – Rule 63(2) – effect of respondent’s non-appearance after due service. Practice – stay of execution – time limits and essential documents required for making an application.
|
25 April 2016 |
|
Court quashed rape conviction after finding flawed section 127(2) voire dire made child testimony inadmissible and sentence excessive.
Evidence — Child witness — Competency — Section 127(2) Evidence Act — Court must first determine whether child understands nature of oath before receiving evidence; failure to conduct proper voire dire requires discounting child’s testimony. Evidence — Effect of improperly received child evidence — inadmissibility/discounting rather than mere need for corroboration where voire dire omitted or improperly conducted. Evidence — Weight of medical/expert evidence — clinical officer’s negative findings and lab results may outweigh unparticularised lay inspection. Sentencing — Rape — life imprisonment reserved for rape of girl under ten years; for victims above ten years statutory minimum (thirty years) applies.
|
25 April 2016 |
| March 2016 |
|
|
Failure to involve and properly address assessors breached statutory requirements, nullifying the trial and prompting a retrial.
Criminal procedure — Assessors’ participation — Failure to allow assessors to question witnesses (s.177 Evidence Act) and inadequate summing-up to assessors (s.298(1) CPA) — Mandatory requirement to try High Court criminal cases with assessors (s.265 CPA) — Trial nullity — Retrial ordered.
|
1 March 2016 |
|
An application combining requests to strike out Notices of Appeal from different High Court decisions is incompetent and struck out.
Court of Appeal Rules — Procedure — Omnibus applications — Whether a single application may seek relief in respect of Notices of Appeal originating from different High Court decisions — Incompetence of omnibus applications; party to file separate applications.
|
1 March 2016 |
|
Applicant met Rule 11(2) stay requirements; stay granted on undertaking to provide separate land as security.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Rule 11(2) stay of execution — cumulative requirements: Notice of Appeal, good cause, substantial loss, promptness, and security — undertaking to provide security (bond on separate land) may suffice — respondent’s failure to reply considered.
|
1 March 2016 |
| February 2016 |
|
|
A stay requires strict compliance with Rule 11(2); one cannot pledge property adjudged to belong to the respondent as security.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Rule 11(2) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – cumulative conditions of substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and provision of security. Matrimonial property – inability of applicant to pledge property declared to belong to respondent as security. Precedent on strict compliance with Rule 11(2) requirements.
|
29 February 2016 |
|
|
29 February 2016 |
|
Measured, specifically pleaded losses can confer High Court pecuniary jurisdiction; appeal allowed and matter remitted for trial.
Civil procedure — pecuniary jurisdiction — specific (special) damages — pleadings — when loss is measurable and crystallized — Order VII Rule 10 (return of plaint) — remittal where court lacks jurisdiction.
|
29 February 2016 |
|
An omnibus application to strike out multiple notices of appeal from different decisions is incompetent; separate applications required.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – competence of applications – omnibus applications – whether a single notice of motion can seek relief affecting Notices of Appeal from two different High Court decisions – preliminary objection under Rule 4(2)(a).
|
29 February 2016 |
|
Applicant granted stay of execution after meeting Rule 11(2) requirements including an undertaking to provide security.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution — Court of Appeal Rules 2009, Rule 11(2): notice of appeal, good cause, substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security — undertaking to provide security accepted.
|
29 February 2016 |
|
Failure to record assessors' participation and allowing an assessor who missed evidence to opine renders the trial a nullity.
Land Disputes Courts Act s.23(3) – assessors' participation – requirement to record individual assessors' questions and opinions; Chairman's duty to show consideration of assessors' views in judgment; improper replacement of assessors mid-trial; assessor who missed evidence cannot validly opine; cumulative irregularities = nullity; retrial de novo ordered.
|
26 February 2016 |
|
Reported
Absence of a recorded judicial summing-up to assessors rendered the trial defective, prompting quashing and a retrial.
Criminal procedure – High Court trials must be with the aid of assessors (s.265 CPA) – Judge’s duty to sum up to assessors and record their opinions (s.298(1) CPA) – Absence of written summing-up undermines assessors’ role and vitiates trial – Proceedings quashed and retrial ordered.
|
26 February 2016 |
|
Failure to record a proper summing up to assessors breached statutory requirements, vitiating the trial and prompting a retrial.
Criminal procedure – Requirement for trials in the High Court to be with the aid of assessors (s.265 CPA) – Duty of trial judge to sum up to assessors after close of case (s.298(1) CPA) – Need for adequate, preferably recorded, summing up – Failure to comply vitiates proceedings and warrants retrial.
|
26 February 2016 |
|
Cautioned statement recorded outside statutory period must be expunged; inadequate identification of recovered property defeats conviction.
Criminal procedure – admissibility of cautioned statements – statutory four-hour basic period under s.50(1)(a) CPA – requirement for extension under s.51 – statement recorded outside period without extension must be expunged. Criminal procedure – form of cautioned statement – question-and-answer mode not mandatory; volunteered narration may be admissible (s.57 CPA). Evidence – identification of recovered property – owner’s bland assertion without distinctive marks insufficient to link items to alleged theft; discovery alone insufficient to sustain conviction.
|
26 February 2016 |
|
Appeal struck out as time-barred because the High Court Registrar's defective certificate of delay was invalid.
Court of Appeal — Civil procedure — Time limits for instituting appeals — Rule 90(1) certificate of delay — Error in registrar's certificate vitiates exclusion of days — Preliminary objection on timeliness.
|
26 February 2016 |
|
Failure to provide required security justified dismissal of an application for stay of execution pending appeal.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Application under Rule 11(2)(b) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Conditions in Rule 11(2)(d)(i)–(iii) must be satisfied cumulatively. Security for due performance – Failure to give security/firm undertaking is fatal to stay application. Delay – Prompt filing of Notice of Appeal and stay application supports absence of unreasonable delay. Irreparable loss – Allegation of demolition of dwelling as substantial loss.
|
26 February 2016 |
|
Stay of execution refused where applicant showed risk and timeliness but failed to provide required security.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution — Application under Rule 11(2)(b) and (2)(d) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — Conditions for stay (substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, security) are cumulative — Failure to give security defeats stay — Timely notice of appeal and risk of demolition insufficient without security.
|
26 February 2016 |
|
|
25 February 2016 |
|
|
25 February 2016 |
|
High Court wrongly heard a fresh enlargement application while an earlier pending application remained; Court nullified proceedings and ordered expeditious determination.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to lodge appeal – transfer under section 45(2) Magistrates' Courts Act limited to appeals – Resident Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear transferred enlargement application – High Court improperly entertained fresh application while an earlier identical application remained pending – Court of Appeal’s revisional powers under section 4(2) AJA to nullify proceedings and direct expeditious determination.
|
25 February 2016 |
|
Replacement of an assessor mid-trial and unrecorded assessor participation nullified the proceedings, requiring a retrial.
Land disputes — assessors — improper substitution of assessor mid-trial; duty to record assessors’ participation (mark ‘NIL’ if none); section 23(3) LDC Act is a saving provision; irregularity fatal — retrial ordered.
|
25 February 2016 |
|
Failure to serve the Notice of Appeal and provide proper security justified dismissal of the stay application with costs.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 84(1): mandatory service of Notice of Appeal within 14 days; Rule 11(2)(d)(iii): requirement to furnish security or give firm undertaking for stay of execution; Procedural competence of appeal and related stay application; Nemo dat quod non habet – disputed property cannot be used as security.
|
24 February 2016 |
|
|
24 February 2016 |
|
|
24 February 2016 |
|
|
24 February 2016 |
|
The appellant's rape and sodomy convictions quashed because prosecution failed to prove penetration, an essential element.
Criminal law – Elements of rape and sodomy – Penetration as essential ingredient – Vague testimony (“a bad act”) insufficient to prove penetration – Burden on prosecution to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction quashed.
|
23 February 2016 |
|
Night‑time visual identification was unreliable; appeal allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law - Identification evidence - Visual identification at night - Adequacy of lighting, opportunity to observe, familiarity of witness, need for identification parade; Appellate review of concurrent findings where evidence misapprehended - Conviction unsafe if identification not watertight.
|
23 February 2016 |