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.
11 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
11 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
July 1984
Appellant’s stabbing of an unarmed man during lawful apprehension not excused by self-defence or provocation; murder conviction upheld.
* Criminal law – murder – self-defence – requirements for reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm where accused is being lawfully apprehended. * Criminal law – provocation – verbal threats inconsistent with peaceful conduct do not necessarily amount to legal provocation. * Evidence – malice aforethought – deliberate knife thrust into chest of unarmed person establishes malice aforethought.
20 July 1984
Self‑defence rejected; deliberate stabbing of unarmed man while subject to lawful arrest upheld as murder; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Murder – malice aforethought – deliberate stabbing of an unarmed person constituted sufficient malice. * Criminal law – Self‑defence – requirement of reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm when using lethal force. * Criminal procedure – Lawful attempt to effect arrest – surrounding a house peaceably and summoning militia does not justify use of lethal force by the suspect. * Provocation – verbal threats inconsistent with peaceful conduct do not amount to legal provocation.
20 July 1984
Uncorroborated single eyewitness identification based on demeanour can be insufficient to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – reliance on single eyewitness: adequacy and scrutiny required. * Evidence – witness credibility – effect of delay in reporting and inconsistencies on reliability. * Standard of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; uncorroborated, questionable identification may be unsafe. * Appeal – trial judge's reliance on demeanour alone is insufficient where material weaknesses exist.
20 July 1984
A heavy blow to the head causing a subdural haematoma satisfies causation and malice aforethought for murder; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Murder – Causation – Whether a head injury caused death three days later (subdural haematoma and ruptured ileum) – application of section 203 of the Penal Code. * Criminal law – Murder – Mens rea – Malice aforethought – inference of intent to kill or cause grievous harm from use of a very heavy weapon (section 200(a)). * Defence of provocation – Insulting words and cultural/contextual arguments – evidential insufficiency and non-exculpatory nature of alleged words.
20 July 1984
Appellant’s speech to armed villagers constituted counselling and procurement of murder, sustaining his murder conviction and dismissal of appeal.
Criminal law – incitement, counselling and procuring murder; speech to an armed crowd as criminal procurement; evidentiary assessment of eyewitness testimony; conviction under Penal Code provisions for counselling murder.
20 July 1984
Appellant's inflammatory speech counselled and procured murder; conviction and death sentence upheld.
Criminal law – Incitement/counselling and procurement of murder; liability under s.22(d) Penal Code; credibility of eyewitness evidence of inciting speech; distinction between arson and murder as consequence of incitement.
20 July 1984
Appellate court quashed murder conviction for insufficient evidence and unreliable eyewitness identification.
Criminal law – Murder – sufficiency of evidence; causal link between proven assault and fatal injury; reliability of sole eyewitness identification; effect of delay in reporting and arrest on identification evidence.
20 July 1984
Conviction quashed: single delayed eyewitness evidence and lack of causal link to fatal wound made prosecution case insufficient.
* Criminal law – murder – sufficiency of evidence – requirement to prove causal link between assault and fatal injury. * Criminal procedure – identification – reliability of single eyewitness testimony and impact of delayed reporting and arrest. * Evidence – contradictions and lack of nexus between described means of assault and cause of death undermine conviction.
20 July 1984
An extra-judicial confession corroborated by physical exhibits can sustain a murder conviction and be upheld on appeal.
* Criminal law – murder – extra-judicial confession admissible and may be preferred to in-court testimony when supported by circumstances. * Evidence – physical exhibits (skull fracture, shoes, pole) may justify inferences as to direction, force and intent. * Murder – single fatal blow inflicted from behind can demonstrate malice aforethought. * Appeal – appellate court will not lightly disturb trial judge's credibility findings and inferences from exhibits.
11 July 1984
Appellant’s late plea of provocation rejected; spearing from the back with a spear established malice and murder conviction upheld.
Criminal law – murder – provocation defence – credibility of late reliance on provocation; evidence – wound inflicted in the back and use of a spear indicating malice aforethought; failure to call an eyewitness and adverse inference.
9 July 1984
Appeal against murder convictions dismissed: intoxication and provocation defences failed due to lack of evidence and premeditation.
* Criminal law – Murder – intent – whether intoxication negated mens rea – lack of evidence of incapacity to form intent. * Criminal law – Provocation – whether sudden grave provocation reduced culpability – pre-arming and deliberate entry indicate absence of heat of passion. * Criminal procedure – Appeal against conviction – appellate review of findings on intoxication and provocation where trial evidence supported intent and guilt.
9 July 1984