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.
6 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
6 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
May 1991
Court affirmed convictions for attempted unlawful exportation, finding inconsistencies immaterial given corroboration and appellant’s conduct.
Criminal law – attempted unlawful exportation – airport seizure of briefcase containing foreign currency and minerals; evidence and credibility – inconsistencies in witness statements; corroboration – PW.2 and PW.3 corroborating PW.7; non‑calling of witnesses – adverse inference; sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction.
16 May 1991
Accomplice evidence, though dangerous if uncorroborated, may support murder convictions where common intention to use lethal force is proved.
* Criminal law – Murder – Joint enterprise and common intention – Whether defendants, who armed themselves to fish illegally at a guarded dam, shared a common intention to overcome resistance and cause death or grievous harm. * Evidence – Accomplice evidence – Caution in acting on uncorroborated accomplice testimony and requirement (or lack) of corroboration by independent witness. * Proof of presence and identity – sufficiency of independent witness evidence to identify third accused.
16 May 1991
A statutory blanket prohibition on bail was invalid for lacking constitutionally required procedural safeguards and being overbroad.
* Constitutional law — enforcement of basic rights — High Court jurisdiction under Article 30(3) and (4). * Personal liberty — Article 15(2)(a) — "procedure prescribed by law" requires meaningful safeguards before denying bail. * Criminal procedure — section 148(5)(e) CPA — blanket prohibition on bail overbroad and unconstitutional. * Derogation clauses — Article 30(2)(b)/Article 31 cannot validate measures that are not necessary and justifiable for public safety/defence. * Separation of powers, presumption of innocence, discrimination — considered but did not determine invalidity here.
16 May 1991
A statutory prohibition on bail lacking prescribed procedural safeguards violates the Constitution's protection of personal liberty.
Constitutional law — Bail — Section 148(5)(e) Criminal Procedure Act — Deprivation of personal liberty must be 'in certain circumstances and subject to a procedure prescribed by law' (Article 15(2)(a)) — Lack of adequate procedural safeguards renders statutory bail prohibition unconstitutional — High Court jurisdiction under Article 30 to entertain rights challenges — Overbreadth cannot be saved by Article 30(2)(b).
16 May 1991
Appeal allowed in part: marriage dissolved; registered title to Plot No.15 upheld for the appellant; custody of minors awarded to appellant.
Family law — divorce — irretrievable breakdown of marriage — custody of children — best interests of the child; Property — registered title and title deed — admissibility under s.40 Land Registration Ordinance and s.100 Evidence Act — presumption of ownership; Procedural — unpleaded claims raised in evidence not entertained.
16 May 1991
Fresh visual identification and possession of a stolen vehicle part upheld appellants' robbery convictions and 15-year sentences.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Visual identification within 24 hours; corroboration by witness placing accused near stolen vehicle; possession of ignition switch linked to stolen vehicle; identification parade not obligatory; sentence enhancement for robbery with firearm justified.
16 May 1991