|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| May 2017 |
|
|
Inability to trace an unrepresented respondent can amount to good cause to extend time to serve a notice of appeal.
Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules — service of notice of appeal within 14 days required by Rule 84(1) — inability to trace an unrepresented respondent can constitute good cause — discretion to extend time and Ratnam principle.
|
26 May 2017 |
|
|
25 May 2017 |
Ally Rajabu and 4 Others vs Republic (Consolidated Criminal Applications No. 6,7,8,4 &3 of 2013; Consolidated Criminal Applications No. 6,7,8,4 &3 of 2013; Consolidated Criminal Applications No. 6,7,8,4 &3 of 2013; Consolidated Criminal Applications No. 6,7,8,4 &3 of 2013; Consolidated Criminal Applications No. 6,7,8,4 &3 of 2013) [2017] TZCA 1106 (24 May 2017)
Applicants' disagreement over visual identification does not constitute a manifest error warranting review.
Criminal law — Review jurisdiction — Rule 66(1)(a) — manifest error on face of record; Visual identification — conditions for reliable identification (light, proximity, prior acquaintance); Review is not a rehearing — mere disagreement with judgment insufficient.
|
24 May 2017 |
|
Applicant’s evidential complaints were appellate issues, not reviewable under Rule 66(1); application dismissed.
Criminal procedure – Review – Scope of review under Rule 66(1) – Review limited to manifest error on face of record, denial of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, or judgment procured illegally/fraud or perjury. Review vs appeal – Errors of identification and evidential sufficiency are appellate issues, not proper grounds for review. Public policy – finality of litigation; Court will not sit in appeal of its own judgment.
|
24 May 2017 |
|
Improper admission of an extra-judicial/cautioned statement rendered the conviction unsafe; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – Evidence – Extra-judicial/cautioned statements – Requirement that such statements be cleared for admission and the accused afforded opportunity to object – Failure renders reliance on the statement unsafe. Evidence procedure – Reading documents before formal admission is prejudicial. Confessions – Prosecution’s burden to prove voluntariness once objection is raised.
|
23 May 2017 |
|
Applicants failed to show good cause for extension of time; unexplained delay and factual grounds led to dismissal.
Court of Appeal — Extension of time under Rule 10 — Good cause/sufficient reason — Lyamuya criteria (account for delay; non-inordinate delay; diligence) — Illegality/point of law as alternative ground — Factual grounds do not justify extension.
|
23 May 2017 |
|
|
23 May 2017 |
|
High Court’s summary dismissal of an appeal at mention without hearing parties violated the constitutional right to be heard; order quashed and remitted.
Administrative and constitutional law — Right to be heard — Natural justice — Trial court’s summary dismissal of an appeal at mention without hearing parties — Decision nullified and remitted for hearing on merits.
|
23 May 2017 |
|
Review granted: punitive costs set aside for denial of opportunity to be heard; matter struck out and each party to bear costs.
Civil procedure – Review under Rule 66(1) – Whether party was wrongly deprived of opportunity to be heard – natural justice and right to fair hearing (Art 13(6)(a)). Evidence – Affidavit requirements (Rule 49(1)) – extraneous matter, verification and expunging inconsequential parts. Costs – Personal costs against an advocate – requirement to give notice to show cause before punitive orders. Court of Appeal – Power to review and modify its prior Ruling where denial of hearing renders decision a nullity.
|
22 May 2017 |
|
A review filed nineteen years after judgment is time-barred and incompetent absent an extension of time.
Court of Appeal Rules (old) – limitation – review applications must be brought within prescribed time or after leave/extension; Rule 40(1)-(2) confines relief to clerical/arithmetical corrections and cannot be used to extend time or correct substantive errors; Registrar’s marking 'Lodged Out of Time' notifies filer of lateness; time-barred review is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
22 May 2017 |
|
|
22 May 2017 |
|
Failure to issue the statutory citation to a caveator renders subsequent probate proceedings a nullity; matter remitted for proper procedure.
Probate law – Caveat procedure – Compliance with section 58–59 of the Probate and Administration of Estates Act and Rule 82 of the Probate Rules; mandatory use of Forms 62, 63, 64, 65; failure to issue statutory citation to caveator renders subsequent proceedings nullity; oral citation insufficient.
|
22 May 2017 |
|
Court set aside personal costs against advocate for lack of notice, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
Administrative justice – right to be heard – court must give an advocate notice to show cause before imposing personal costs. Review procedure – Rule 66(1)(b) – deprivation of opportunity to be heard grounds for review. Affidavit practice – extraneous matters may be expunged where substantive parts suffice. Court of Appeal Rules – citation of correct rule (Rule 48(1)) required but omission does not justify summary personal sanction without hearing.
|
20 May 2017 |
|
Review under Rule 66(1)(a) cannot be used to reargue appellate grounds or reassess evidence.
Review – Rule 66(1)(a) – manifest error on the face of the record; review limited to obvious errors; review not a substitute for appeal; cautioned statement voluntariness and trial-within-a-trial; credibility of witnesses not reviewable if not on face of judgment; finality of appellate decisions.
|
19 May 2017 |
|
An application to review a 19‑year‑old Court of Appeal judgment was time‑barred and therefore struck out.
Civil procedure — Review — Time limitation for review applications under the old Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 40 (correction of clerical/arithmetic mistakes) not a vehicle for substantive review — Registrar's marking "Lodged Out of Time" and competence of filings.
|
18 May 2017 |
|
A review application filed nineteen years late was struck out as time-barred; Rule 40 does not permit substantive review.
Court of Appeal — Review — Time limitation for review applications under the revoked Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 — Rule 40 limited to clerical/arithmetic mistakes and not a substitute for review — "Lodged out of time" mark and requirement for extension of time — competency of late review applications.
|
18 May 2017 |
|
Failure to issue statutory citation to the applicant's caveat rendered subsequent probate proceedings null and required quashing.
Probate law – Caveat and citation – Requirement that petitioner apply (Form 63) and Registrar issue/service of citation (Form 64) – mandatory compliance under Rule 82 of Probate Rules. Procedural irregularity – Failure to issue statutory citation renders subsequent probate proceedings nullity. Court of Appeal – Revisionary powers exercised suo motu to quash and remit defective probate proceedings.
|
18 May 2017 |
|
Review dismissed: Rule 66(1)(a) cannot be used to re-argue appeal merits or re-open evidence.
Criminal procedure – Review under Rule 66(1)(a) – scope limited to specified grounds – 'manifest error on the face of the record' must be obvious/self-evident. Criminal law – cautioned statement – trial within a trial and voluntariness issues cannot be re-opened by review where they were already raised on appeal. Appellate practice – review is not a substitute for appeal; grounds of appeal cannot be resurrected as grounds of review. Evidence – credibility challenges not forming part of the appellate judgment cannot form a basis for review.
|
17 May 2017 |
|
Applicant’s review seeking re‑argument of identification and alibi dismissed as improper use of review jurisdiction.
Review jurisdiction — Rule 66(1) Court of Appeal Rules — limited grounds; review not a substitute for appeal; manifest error on the face of the record; identification evidence and close-encounter identification; alibi; right to be heard; abuse of process.
|
17 May 2017 |
|
Review application dismissed; review not allowed to re‑argue appeal or substitute appellate findings.
Criminal law – review jurisdiction – limited scope of Rule 66(1) – review not a substitute for appeal; Criminal procedure – identification evidence and alibi – adequacy of consideration by appellate court; Procedural fairness – alleged denial of hearing at first appellate court is not ground for review by final court; Abuse of process – re‑argument of settled appeal is impermissible.
|
17 May 2017 |