|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2017 |
|
|
Conviction overturned where identification, recent‑possession, inadmissible cautioned statements and weak circumstantial chain failed to prove murder.
Criminal law — Identification evidence — Relevance where accused admitted hiring but no eye‑witness to killing; Doctrine of recent possession — requirements for application; Cautioned statements — admissibility and statutory time limit under Criminal Procedure Act; Circumstantial evidence — necessity to exclude other reasonable hypotheses and prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
15 December 2017 |
|
Omission of required address-for-service statements from the record of appeal renders the appeal incompetent and is fatal.
Civil procedure – Appeal record – Rule 96(1)(b) CRA Rules – statement of address for service – primary/core document – omission renders appeal incompetent; appeal struck out.
|
15 December 2017 |
|
A defective charge nullified convictions; poor prosecution evidence precluded retrial, prompting the appellant's unconditional release.
Criminal law — Charge particulars — Defective charge (omission/failure to reference statute) renders proceedings a nullity; notice of appeal defect (wrong court named) not fatal if particulars clear; identification, PF3 admissibility and chain of evidence critical; where prosecution evidence in nullified record is insufficient, retrial may be refused and release ordered.
|
15 December 2017 |
|
Conviction quashed where recent-possession, identification and cautioned statements were inadequately proved and circumstantial chain failed.
Criminal law – identification evidence; doctrine of recent possession – requirements (possession, ownership, recent theft, subject of charge); inadmissibility of statements taken outside statutory period; circumstantial evidence – necessity of complete unbroken chain of inference.
|
14 December 2017 |
|
Leave to appeal in land cases must be granted under section 47(1) LDCA; leave under AJA s.5(1)(c) is invalid; appeal struck out.
Land law – Appeals – Leave to appeal from High Court decisions originating in land disputes – Exclusive application of section 47(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act – leave granted under section 5(1)(c) AJA inapplicable and invalid; incompetence of appeal.
|
14 December 2017 |
|
Cautioned statement recorded after statutory time was expunged; remaining evidence insufficient to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned statements – statutory time limits (s.50, s.51 Criminal Procedure Act) – expungement for non‑compliance; Evidence Act s.34B – admission of absent witness statement after unsuccessful efforts to procure attendance; discrepancies in witness evidence – minor inconsistencies not necessarily fatal; burden of proof – prosecution duty to prove possession/ownership beyond reasonable doubt.
|
14 December 2017 |
|
A conviction based on a charge lumping multiple offences into one count is a nullity; retrial ordered after proper charge filed.
Criminal procedure – Charge particulars – Requirement that each distinct offence be set out in separate count (s.135(2) CPA) – Charge must give reasonable information as to nature of offence (s.132 CPA) – Lumped charges incurably defective – Proceedings and judgments founded on defective charge are nullities – Retrial ordered in interests of justice after appropriate charge sheet filed by DPP.
|
14 December 2017 |
|
A defective charge (omitting "without her consent") rendered the trial and appeal null; weak prosecution evidence prompted unconditional release.
Criminal law – Rape – Defective particulars of charge (omission of "without her consent" and lack of statutory reference) – nullity of trial and appeal proceedings – exercise of section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – discretion to order retrial vs unconditional release where prosecution evidence is weak; identification and PF3 evidentiary issues considered.
|
14 December 2017 |
|
Review dismissed: Court found no manifest error and no denial of hearing in striking out the appeal.
Criminal procedure — Review jurisdiction — Scope limited to errors apparent on the face of the record; not a substitute for appeal — Appealability — Whether a High Court order directing retrial finally determines the criminal charge — Right to be heard — Striking out incompetent appeal does not deprive party of hearing where parties were heard on preliminary legal point.
|
13 December 2017 |
|
Conviction quashed where accused was tried under a repealed provision; no retrial ordered and appellant released.
Criminal law – defective charge where statute repealed and replaced by Sexual Offences Act 1998; substitution of charge in judgment without notice violates fair trial; conviction quashed for being founded on non-existent provision; retrial discretionary — not ordered where evidence insufficient and interests of justice require release.
|
13 December 2017 |
|
Dispute over enjoyment of jointly owned registered land is not time-barred; court ordered buyout or sale, rejecting unproven special damages.
Land law – joint registered ownership – dispute over enjoyment/use not ownership – limitation of actions inapplicable; improper reliance on alien distribution document – co-owner remedies: buyout or sale and equal division of proceeds; special damages must be proved.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
Registry delay supplying certified copies does not justify striking out a notice of appeal where Rule 90 compliance is shown.
Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules – striking out notice of appeal under Rule 89(2) for failure to take essential steps – compliance with Rule 90(1) & (2) by applying for certified copies within 30 days – registry delay does not justify striking out – reliance on Transcontinental Forwarders precedent.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
Stay of execution refused because applicant failed to provide required security and could not pledge disputed land.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Rule 11(2) Court of Appeal Rules – cumulative requirements: notice of appeal, good cause, and security for due performance – security cannot be a property not owned by the applicant – undertaking to provide security may suffice if realistic and time-limited.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
|
12 December 2017 |
|
Cautioned statement recorded outside statutory time was expunged; remaining evidence failed to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal procedure – cautioned statements – statutory four‑hour limit (s.50 Criminal Procedure Act) and requirement for extension (s.51) – non‑compliance renders statement inadmissible and subject to expungement. Evidence – statements of unavailable witnesses – admissibility under evidentiary provisions where maker is shown to be a passenger and prosecution made efforts to produce witness. Evidence – discrepancies in witness testimony – distinction between minor inconsistencies and contradictions going to the gist of the case. Criminal burden – prosecution must prove possession/ownership beyond reasonable doubt; single sighting of placing a bag insufficient to establish possession/ownership.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
A charge lumping distinct offences into one count is incurably defective, warranting quashal and a retrial.
Criminal law – Charge particulars – Multiple incidents of same offence must be charged separately – requirement under s.135(2) CPA and s.132 CPA for sufficient particulars; defective charge renders proceedings a nullity. Appellate jurisdiction – Exercise of revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA to quash proceedings and order retrial in interest of justice. Retrial – permissible where original trial was illegal or defective and interest of justice requires it.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
An unequivocal plea of guilty bars challenge to conviction; mandatory Wildlife Act 20-year sentence cannot be reduced.
Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Unequivocal plea and admissions bar appeal against conviction under s.360(1) CPA; exceptions in Laurence Mpinga. Wildlife Conservation Act – Unlawful possession of government trophies – statutory mandatory minimum sentence where value exceeds Tshs.1,000,000 (s.86(2)(c)(ii)). Sentence – appellate court cannot reduce a statutory mandatory minimum.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
Absence of summing-up to assessors renders the trial a nullity; conviction and death sentence quashed, retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Role of assessors – Trial Judge’s duty to sum up the evidence and law to assessors – Sections 265 and 298(1) CPA – Absence or non-recording of summing-up vitiates proceedings – retrial de novo ordered.
|
12 December 2017 |
|
Requesting certified copies within time prevents striking out a notice of appeal for failure to take essential steps.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Rule 89(2) (striking out notices) – Essential steps – Request for certified copies under Rule 90(1) and (2) – Failure of Registry to supply copies prevents finding of failure to take essential steps; reliance on Transcontinental Forwarders precedent.
|
11 December 2017 |
|
An unequivocal guilty plea bars appeal against conviction; mandatory 20-year Wildlife Act sentence cannot be reduced.
Criminal law – Plea of guilty – When a plea is unequivocal and bars appeal against conviction under s.360(1) CPA. Wildlife law – Unlawful possession of government trophies – Mandatory minimum sentence under s.86(2)(c)(ii) Wildlife Conservation Act. Appeals – Limited grounds allowing challenge to conviction entered on plea of guilty.
|
9 December 2017 |
|
Appeal allowed: dispute over enjoyment of jointly owned registered land not time-barred; co-owners ordered to effect buyout or sale, costs to appellants.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – leave to appeal – omission in judge’s order to cite section 47(1) of Land Disputes Courts Act not fatal where application invoked it. Limitation – Law of Limitation Act – period commences when right of action accrues – does not bar proceedings concerning enjoyment/benefits of registered joint land ownership. Land law – co-ownership disputes – remedies where co-owners deadlocked: buyout by occupant, buyout of occupant, or sale and equal division of proceeds. Evidence – weight and relevance of exhibits – inconsistent exhibit referring to different persons cannot defeat registered title.
|
8 December 2017 |
|
An administrator’s suit in his personal name for estate property is void; court quashed proceedings and ordered retrial after amendment.
Civil procedure – Order XXX r.1 CPC – suits concerning property vested in an administrator must be brought in representative capacity; failure to do so renders proceedings a nullity; Appellate jurisdiction – s.4(2) AJA – power to quash and set aside and order retrial; amendment permitted; costs each party to bear.
|
8 December 2017 |
|
A Montreal Convention time‑bar plea cannot be decided preliminarily where factual disability issues affect limitation.
Aviation law — limitation under Montreal Convention Article 35 and Civil Aviation Regulations — calculation of limitation period governed by law of court seized — Limitation Act s.16 excludes time of disability — preliminary objection must be a pure point of law and cannot be decided where factual issues (e.g., disability dates) require determination.
|
8 December 2017 |
|
A limitation objection under the Montreal Convention cannot dispose an action when factual issues like disability tolling require proof.
Aviation law — Montreal Convention Article 35(1) — two‑year limitation; Regulation 38(2) — calculation by law of forum; Limitation Act s.16 — disability tolling; preliminary objection must be a pure point of law — where factual issues arise the objection cannot dispose the suit.
|
8 December 2017 |
|
|
7 December 2017 |
|
Appellant's conduct and presence at the hideout established common intention to commit armed robbery; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Common intention (section 23 Penal Code) – Circumstantial and conduct evidence (leasing and presence at hideout) – Credibility findings and appellate interference – Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
7 December 2017 |
|
Absence of recorded summing up to assessors nullifies High Court trial; conviction and sentence quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Assessors – duty to sum up evidence and explain law to assessors – absence of recorded summing up vitiates trial; assessors' improper conduct; retrial de novo ordered.
|
7 December 2017 |
|
A time-bar preliminary objection under the Montreal Convention requiring factual inquiry is not a pure point of law; High Court erred.
Aviation law – Montreal Convention 1999 – Article 35 (two-year limitation). Civil Aviation (Carriage by Air) Regulations 2008 – Regulation 38 – choice of law and calculation of limitation. Limitation law – Limitation Act s.16 – exclusion of time for legal disability. Civil procedure – preliminary objection – must be a pure point of law; factual issues cannot be decided on preliminary objection.
|
7 December 2017 |
|
Notice of appeal struck out for failure to prosecute and for not complying with Rule 90(2)'s application-for-copies requirement.
Civil procedure – striking out notice of appeal – failure to take essential steps to prosecute appeal. Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 89(2); Rule 90(1) and (2) – time limits and exception for awaiting copies of proceedings; requirement of written application served on respondent. Delay – inability to pay or change of advocate does not excuse non-compliance with mandatory filing requirements.
|
6 December 2017 |
|
Court stayed execution pending appeal, permitting an undertaking and ordering TSh150,000,000 bank guarantee; title cannot be security.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution — Rule 11(2)(d) requirements: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security — Undertaking as acceptable security — Decretal property/title cannot be used as security (nemo dat quod non habet).
|
2 December 2017 |
|
|
1 December 2017 |
| November 2017 |
|
|
|
30 November 2017 |
|
|
1 November 2017 |
| August 2017 |
|
Elections – Election Petitions – Adducing Electronic Evidence
Civil Procedure – Appeals – Striking Out of Incompetent Appeals |
31 August 2017 |
|
Concurrent factual findings that the appellant blocked a right of way were upheld; oral evidence and sale sketch supported the conclusion.
Land law – right of way – encroachment on reserved passage – admissibility and weight of oral evidence versus documentary proof; concurrence of findings on locus in quo and measurements. Civil procedure – second appeal – restraint on disturbing concurrent findings of fact.
|
14 August 2017 |
|
Concurrent factual findings upheld: appellant blocked a reserved right of way; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – Right of way/right of passage – existence of reserved road shown in sale agreement sketch and by locus visit measurements; encroachment by purchaser may be ordered removed. Evidence – Oral versus documentary evidence – where plots are unsurveyed and described orally, oral testimony and locus in quo findings may legitimately be preferred. Appeal – Concurrent findings of fact by trial and first appellate courts will not be disturbed absent misapprehension of evidence, miscarriage of justice, or legal error.
|
14 August 2017 |
|
Analyst who received, examined and resealed a package is competent to tender the exhibit; chain of custody assessed after prosecution case.
Criminal procedure — Admissibility of exhibits — Competence to tender — Analyst who received, examined, analysed and resealed a package competent to tender it; chain of custody to be addressed at close of prosecution case.
|
11 August 2017 |
|
A chemist who analysed and resealed an exhibit is competent to tender it; chain of custody is proved by prosecution timing.
Evidence — admissibility of exhibits — competency of witness to tender — Government Chemist who analysed and resealed exhibit competent to tender it. Evidence — chain of custody — proof to be established by prosecution; not to be decided mid-testimony by one witness. Criminal procedure — exclusion of exhibits for lack of formal custodian where witness has direct knowledge and control after analysis.
|
11 August 2017 |
|
A review under Rule 66(1) is limited; it cannot be used to raise new complaints or to re-evaluate evidence (appeal in disguise).
Court of Appeal — Review jurisdiction — Rule 66(1) CA Rules — limited grounds for review; review must not be used to re-open appeals or re-evaluate evidence. Procedural law — New issues not raised on appeal cannot be the basis for review. Criminal procedure — Alleged defects in charge-sheet must be timely raised and considered on appeal, not later by review.
|
11 August 2017 |
|
Non‑parties who disobey a court injunction are liable under s.124 Penal Code; Order XXXVII CPC applies to parties only.
Civil procedure – Order XXXVII, r.2(2) CPC – temporary injunctions and committal powers apply to parties to the suit only. Criminal law – s.124 Penal Code – disobedience of court orders by non‑parties attracts criminal liability. Distinguishing authorities – party status is decisive in choosing civil committal v. criminal prosecution.
|
11 August 2017 |
|
Reported
Review dismissed: cannot raise new issues or re-evaluate evidence; review not an appeal in disguise.
* Review of judgment – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, Rule 66(1) – limited grounds for review (manifest error on face of record; deprivation of hearing; nullity; lack of jurisdiction; fraud/legal procurement) New issues not raised on appeal cannot found review Review is not an opportunity to re‑evaluate evidence or rehear the case (appeal in disguise) Precedents permitting review are fact‑sensitive and distinguishable. |
10 August 2017 |
|
Where leave to appeal is required in land cases, time for appeal excludes period for obtaining and preparing the leave order.
Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – limitation periods under Rule 90(1) Court of Appeal Rules – effect of section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act (leave to appeal) – Rule 96 requirement to include leave order in record – exclusion of time for preparation of leave/order – preliminary objection on time bar rejected.
|
10 August 2017 |
|
Review dismissed: review cannot be used as a backdoor appeal to re-argue conviction issues.
Criminal procedure — Review of Court of Appeal judgment — Rule 66(1) grounds — review not an appeal — manifest error on face of record; denial of hearing; nullity; impermissibility of re‑appraising evidence; watching brief and contradictions in prosecution evidence do not alone ground review.
|
10 August 2017 |
|
A criminal prosecution under s.124 Penal Code is proper where non-parties disobey a tribunal's injunction; Order XXXVII applies to parties only.
Civil procedure – Injunctions – Order XXXVII r.2(2) CPC provides civil remedies for breach by parties to a suit (attachment, civil detention). Criminal law – Disobedience of lawful court orders – s.124 Penal Code applies where non-parties disobey injunctions. Jurisdiction – District Criminal Court competent to try non-party contemnors under s.124. Case law – Kigorogolo distinguished where contemnor was a party to the suit.
|
9 August 2017 |
|
Review application dismissed for failing to establish deprivation of hearing or manifest error under Rule 66(1).
Criminal procedure – Application for review – Strict and exceptional grounds for review under Rule 66(1) – manifest error on the face of the record; deprivation of hearing; finality of judgments; review not a second appeal.
|
9 August 2017 |
|
Where leave to appeal in land cases is required, time spent obtaining the leave is excluded when computing appeal limitation.
Land appeals – leave to appeal under section 47(1) – computation of limitation under Rule 90(1) – order granting leave forms part of appeal record; time for preparation/delivery of such record excluded from limitation period – preliminary objection on time‑bar rejected.
|
7 August 2017 |
|
Application for extension to appeal was procedurally incompetent; Court struck it out and awarded costs.
Civil procedure – appeals in land disputes – requirement of leave under section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act before appealing to Court of Appeal; Court of Appeal Rules – incorrect invocation of Rule 10 instead of Rule 45(b) after High Court refusal; Competence – misconceived application struck out for lack of competence.
|
7 August 2017 |
|
Court quashed respondent's Ward Tribunal proceedings for exceeding territorial jurisdiction and preserved the applicant's Ward Tribunal decision.
Land law – Territorial jurisdiction of Ward Tribunals – Ward Tribunals sitting as Land Courts are confined to the ward of their establishment (Land Courts Act s.10(1); Ward Tribunals Act s.3). Civil procedure – High Court practice – Improper referral of matters to Court of Appeal for "directives and necessary orders" discouraged; High Court should decide legal issues within its remit. Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Revisionary powers (s.4(3)) – Court of Appeal may intervene to quash proceedings founded on jurisdictional illegality. Remedy – Proceedings and subsequent appeals founded on excess of jurisdiction are quashed; valid earlier tribunal decision preserved; statutory right of appeal preserved (Land Courts Act s.20(1)).
|
7 August 2017 |
|
Ward Tribunals lack jurisdiction outside their Ward; excess-jurisdiction decisions and ensuing appeals are quashed.
Land law – Ward Tribunals’ territorial jurisdiction; Ward Tribunals sitting as Land Courts confined to their Ward; Jurisdictional error – proceedings in excess of jurisdiction are nullities; Appellate procedure – High Court cannot refer matters to Court of Appeal for "directives"; Court of Appeal’s revisionary power under s.4(3) AJA to correct illegality; Remedy – quashing of tribunal proceedings and subsequent appeals.
|
7 August 2017 |
|
Application for extension of time struck out for failure to state grounds and provide reasons in affidavit, contrary to Rule 48(1).
Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 48(1) requirement to cite specific Rule and state grounds in notice of motion – failure to state grounds and absence of reasons in affidavit renders application for extension of time incompetent – application struck out with costs.
|
7 August 2017 |