|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 2019 |
|
|
Armed robbery conviction quashed where charge omitted to state who was threatened and victim did not testify.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – particulars of offence – essential ingredient that violence or threat be directed at a person – charge must specify person targeted; omission fatal and not curable under s.388 CPA; victim identity discrepancy; conviction unsafe.
|
10 April 2019 |
|
Visual identification and recent-possession evidence were insufficient to support conviction; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law — Visual identification — Application of Waziri Amani guidelines; contradictions and failure to eliminate mistaken identity make identification unsafe. Criminal law — Recent possession — Requirements: possession, positive identification as complainant's property, recentness, and link to the charge; absence of serial-number reporting, receipts or chain of custody vitiates doctrine. Evidence — Cautioned/confessional statements — Repudiation requires inquiry into admissibility before reliance. Appellate review — Second appeal may intervene where there are misdirections, misapprehension of evidence or miscarriage of justice.
|
10 April 2019 |
|
Reported
Appellate court affirmed US$1,100,000 liability, set aside unproven general damages and reduced pre-judgment interest to 10%.
Civil appeal — pleadings — amended written statement of defence — counterclaim omitted by amendment ceases to have effect; issues framed on omitted counterclaim invalid. Evidence — documents admitted — Order XIII r.4 CPC — minor endorsement defects do not automatically vitiate exhibits where no prejudice shown. Burden and evaluation of evidence — loan of US$1,100,000 proved on balance of probabilities; alleged set-off on share transfer/winding-up agreement not established. Damages — general damages must be supported by evidence; court vacated unsupported award. Interest — pre-judgment interest rate discretionary; excessive commercial rate reduced; post-judgment rate within statutory limits affirmed.
|
9 April 2019 |
|
Appellant's armed robbery conviction quashed for defective charge omitting person targeted by weapons.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – particulars of offence – essential to specify the person against whom violence or threat was directed when weapons are used. Criminal procedure – defective charge sheet – omission as to person targeted by weapon is fatal and not cured under s.388 CPA. Evidence – absence of victim's testimony and naming discrepancy – undermines prosecution case. Identification – challenged but unnecessary to decide once charge defect proved fatal.
|
9 April 2019 |
|
Weak visual identification and defective proof of recent possession rendered the conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Visual identification – application of Waziri Amani guidelines; necessity to eliminate mistaken identity. Evidence – Recent possession – requirements: property found with accused; positive identification to complainant; recent theft; subject of charge; need for proof of serial numbers/receipts and chain of custody. Evidence – Cautioned statements – inadmissible without inquiry when repudiated. Appellate review – intervention warranted where misdirection, contradictions and violations of legal principles render conviction unsafe.
|
9 April 2019 |
|
Conviction quashed: visual identification unsafe and recent-possession evidence lacked identification and chain of custody.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Waziri Amani principles – evidence must be watertight and surrounding circumstances carefully considered. Criminal law – Recent possession – requirements: found with accused, positive identification to complainant, recent theft, subject of charge; need for clear linkage and chain of custody. Evidence – Cautioned statements – mandatory inquiry into admissibility where statement is repudiated. Appellate review – Second appeal may intervene where lower courts misdirect or misapprehend evidence causing miscarriage of justice.
|
9 April 2019 |
|
The appellant withdrew the appeal under Rule 102(1); the Court marked the appeal withdrawn and made no order as to costs.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Withdrawal of appeal – Application under Rule 102(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (as amended) – Court may mark appeal withdrawn and make no order as to costs. Civil procedure – Non-appearance of respondents at hearing despite service of notice – court proceeds to hear procedural application and dispose of appeal accordingly.
|
9 April 2019 |
|
Alleged sentencing before conviction did not establish illegality; unexplained six‑year delay justified refusal of extension of time.
Criminal procedure – Extension of time – Discretionary nature of court’s power to extend time – appellate interference only if discretion misdirected or improperly exercised. Illegality as ground for extension – can be raised at any time – absence of conviction before sentence must be shown on record. Review limited to whether refusal to extend time was judicious; substantive challenges to trial judgment not entertained absent extension.
|
8 April 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for extension; alleged illegality was not apparent on the record.
Civil procedure — Extension of time (Rules 10 and 48(1)) — applicant must show good cause and account for each day of delay; Illegality — to attract extension must be apparent on the face of the record and of sufficient importance; Notice of appeal by another party does not automatically bar filing of a revision.
|
4 April 2019 |
|
Reported
Unexplained six-year delay barred extension of time; alleged sentencing illegality not established on the record.
Criminal procedure – extension of time – discretionary powers of High Court and Court of Appeal – interference only where exercise of discretion was injudicious or vitiated by misdirection. Criminal procedure – extension of time – illegality as a ground for extension – may be raised at any time but must be shown to exist on the record. Evidence – inspection of original record – conviction properly recorded precluded reliance on alleged sentencing-before-conviction or incomplete-judgment illegality.
|
4 April 2019 |
|
Appellant failed to prove lawful title; locus standi was not contested; appeal dismissed with costs to respondents.
Land law – proof of title – importance of documentary trail (sale agreement, transfer deed, consent) for disposition of surveyed land under s.36; locus standi – pleaded status of parties and consequences of failure to challenge in reply; adverse possession – relief must be pleaded; evaluation of credibility and missing documents may render registration suspect.
|
4 April 2019 |
|
Reported
Applicant failed to prove lawful title where statutory transfer documents were missing; appeal dismissed.
Land law – proof of title and disposition of surveyed land – compliance with section 36 Land Act required for valid transfer; absence of sale agreement/transfer deed undermines claimed title. Civil procedure – parties bound by pleadings – adverse possession cannot be relied upon if not pleaded. Locus standi – distinction between plaintiff’s locus standi and defendants’ pleaded status as administrators; pleaded status and concession preclude separate onus.
|
4 April 2019 |
|
Delay caused by Registry’s late supply and defective certificate justified extension of time to file appeal.
Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 and Rule 90 – defective certificate of delay issued by Registry – delay attributable to court registry – good cause for condonation.
|
3 April 2019 |
|
The applicant’s delay, caused by a defective Deputy Registrar’s certificate, justified extension of time to lodge the appeal.
Civil procedure — Extension of time (Rule 10) — Good cause — Certificate of delay issued by Deputy Registrar — Defective certificate and Registrar's delays can justify enlargement of time — Alleged illegality of judgment not considered once good cause shown.
|
1 April 2019 |
|
Court granted extension of time due to registry delay; alleged illegality was not obvious and failed.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Discretion under Rule 10 — Applicant must show sufficient cause; illegality must be obvious to justify extension — Administrative delay at court registry (red tape) may constitute sufficient cause — Rule 8(d) deals with computation of time, not certificate of delay; certificate of delay arises under Rule 90(1).
|
1 April 2019 |
|
A statutory procedural amendment made appeals from the High Court in land matters as of right, rendering the extension-for-leave application academic.
Land law - Appeals from High Court exercising original jurisdiction - amendment of section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act removes leave requirement; Procedural statutory amendments - retrospective operation in absence of contrary intent; Application for extension of time to seek leave rendered academic; Matter struck out; No order as to costs.
|
1 April 2019 |