Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

Court of Appeal of Tanzania

This is the highest level in the justice delivery system in Tanzania. The Court of Appeal draws its mandate from Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The Court hears appeals  on both point of law and facts for cases originating from the High Court of Tanzania and Magistrates with extended jurisdiction in exercise of their original jurisdiction or appellate and revisional jurisdiction over matters originating in the District Land and Housing Tribunals, District Courts and Courts of Resident Magistrate. The Court also hears similar appeals  from quasi judicial bodies of status equivalent to that of the High Court. It  further hears appeals  on point of law against the decision of the High Court in  matters originating from Primary Courts. The Court of Appeal also exercises jurisdiction on appeals originating from the High Court of Zanzibar except for constitutional issues arising from the interpretation of the Constitution of Zanzibar and matters arising from the Kadhi Court.

Physical address
26 Kivukoni Road Building P.O. Box 9004, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Visit website
https://jmap.judiciary.go.tz/jmap/jmap-coa
11 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Outcomes
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
11 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
March 2020
William s/o Safari @ Kadya vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 37 of 2017) [2020] TZCA 169 (27 March 2020)
Failure to sum up material evidence to assessors vitiated the trial; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Assessors’ involvement – Duty to sum up evidence to assessors (s.265, s.298(1) CPA) – Inadequate summing up renders trial without aid of assessors and is a nullity – Remedy: quash conviction and order retrial (s.4(2) AJA).
 27 March 2020
Christian Orgenes Nkya vs Republic (Criminal Application 14 of 2019) [2020] TZCA 173 (26 March 2020)
Extension of time granted where applicant accounted for delay and indicated intended ground (manifest error); Single Justice must not decide substantive merits.
Criminal practice — extension of time — Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules — good cause assessed by factors including length and reasons for delay, arguability and prejudice. Review procedure — Rule 66(1) — indication of intended grounds (manifest error on the face of the record) suffices at extension stage; detailed proof of merits not required. Limitation on Single Justice — must not determine substantive merits when deciding extension applications.
 26 March 2020
Daniel Apael Urio vs Exim T. Bank (Civil Appeal 185 of 2019) [2020] TZCA 163 (26 March 2020)
Certified copy of term deposit rightly excluded; applicant failed to prove existence of the fixed deposit on balance of probabilities.
Evidence Act (ss. 61, 65–68) – best evidence rule – proof of contents of documents – secondary evidence – requirement to serve notice or procure original holder's attendance; Banking law – alleged fixed deposit – necessity of primary documentary proof for written agreements; Civil procedure – standard of proof – balance of probabilities; Adverse inference – no duty to call witnesses where respondent denies transaction; First appellate reappraisal – rule 36(1)(a).
 26 March 2020
Joseph Raphael Kimaro & Another vs Republic (Criminal Application 54 of 2019) [2020] TZCA 174 (26 March 2020)
Applicant failed to show good cause for extension to lodge review due to unexplained delay; application dismissed.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to show good cause; must account for each day of delay; length and reason for delay and arguability relevant. Review procedure – Rule 66(3) – copy of judgment to be annexed; late supply may justify some delay but applicant must explain all periods. Jurisdiction – Single Justice on extension applications should not probe substantive merits of intended review.
 26 March 2020
M/s Flycatcher Safaris Ltd vs Hon.Minister for Lands & Human Settlements Development & Another (Civil Appeal 142 of 2017) [2020] TZCA 162 (26 March 2020)
A defective certificate of delay that omits exclusion of days or records a wrong date is vitiated and must be rectified and re‑lodged.
Civil procedure – certificate of delay – defective certificate – failure to exclude aggregate days and incorrect application date – error vitiates certificate. Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 90(1), Rule 4(2)(a)(b)) – rectification and lodging of supplementary record of appeal.
 26 March 2020
M/S. Flycatcher Safaris Ltd vs Hon. Minister for Lands & Human Settlements Development & Another (Civil Appeal no. 142 of 2017) [2020] TZCA 1945 (26 March 2020)
A certificate of delay with material errors is vitiated; court allowed rectification and ordered lodging of a rectified certificate within 30 days.
Civil procedure – Certificate of delay – Material errors (wrong application date; failure to exclude days under Rule 90(1)) vitiate certificate; rectification permitted; lodging of rectified certificate as supplementary record of appeal; responsibility of Registrar and duty of party to seek correction.
 26 March 2020
Eligi Valence @ Marandu @ Msoro & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 41 of 2017) [2020] TZCA 172 (25 March 2020)
Assessor cross‑examination and improperly read exhibits rendered trial unfair; convictions quashed for insufficient corroborated evidence.
Criminal procedure – assessors’ role – assessors must not cross‑examine witnesses (s.177 Evidence Act); preliminary hearing formalities – cautioned statements and exhibits must be read over to accused (s.192(3) CPA); sufficiency of evidence – unreliable eyewitness testimony and uncorroborated cautioned statement cannot sustain a murder conviction; remedy – vitiated proceedings may be nullified but retrial is discretionary and not automatic.
 25 March 2020
Mark s/o Kasimiri vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 39 of 2017) [2020] TZCA 170 (24 March 2020)
Appellant's murder conviction and death sentence upheld on cumulative circumstantial evidence, despite expunging the unread Post-Mortem report.
Criminal law – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen with victim and possession of suspected weapon – Chain of circumstantial facts must be complete and point irresistibly to guilt; Post-Mortem report must be read out when tendered; minor inconsistencies in dates immaterial where charge correctly pleads assault date.
 24 March 2020
Njake Enterprises Ltd vs Tanzania Sewing Machine Co. Ltd (Civil Application 118 of 2017) [2020] TZCA 164 (20 March 2020)
Review application dismissed: complaints were re‑argument of appeal, not a manifest error on the face of the record.
Appellate review — Review jurisdiction under s.4(4) AJA and Rule 66(1) — Manifest error on face of record — Standard requires obvious, self-evident mistake — Review distinct from appeal — Mesne profits and set-off where partial payment established.
 20 March 2020
Emil Elias vs The Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 275 of 2011) [2020] TZCA 1965 (19 March 2020)
Failure to comply with section 231(4) CPA in denying defence witnesses rendered subsequent proceedings a nullity; trial to resume.
Criminal procedure – Right of accused to call witnesses – Section 231(1) and (4) CPA – Trial court must inquire into absence of defence witnesses, compel attendance or record reasons – Failure renders proceedings a nullity – Appellate court’s revisional powers to quash and order recommencement of trial.
 19 March 2020
Joseph Fissoo & Others vs Ithna Asheri Charitable Hospital (Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2020) [2020] TZCA 1952 (18 March 2020)
Where retrenchment is substantively fair but procedurally defective, courts may award less than twelve months' compensation.
Labour law – retrenchment – operational requirements – validity and fairness of termination for renovation and safety reasons. Labour law – retrenchment procedure – section 38 E.L.R.A. – requirement to give notice, disclose information and consult; failure to issue formal retrenchment notice and inadequate consultation. Employment compensation – unfair termination – discretion to award less than statutory twelve months' remuneration where unfairness is procedural only.
 18 March 2020