|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2000 |
|
|
Residency for tax depends on registration timing; withholding tax is due if recipient was non‑resident at payment time.
* Tax — Income Tax Act s.2(2)(b)(i) — meaning of "registered" and residency — certificate of compliance under s.320A/321 Cap.212 may confer residence.
* Tax — Withholding tax s.34(1) — obligation to deduct arises upon payment; residency determined at payment time.
* Administrative law — certiorari to quash unlawful tax demand — partial allowance where some collections lawful and others not.
|
20 December 2000 |
|
The applicant’s review application was dismissed as time-barred, frivolous and an abuse of process.
Limitation — Review applications to Court of Appeal — inordinate delay (28 months) renders application time-barred; Law of Limitation Act inapplicable to Court of Appeal reviews (Abood); advocacy error not sufficient cause; failure to request cross-examination fatal; frivolous/vexatious applications and abuse of process discouraged.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
A review filed 28 months after the judgment was time‑barred; Court of Appeal Rules, not the Limitation Act, govern deadline.
* Civil procedure — Review of Court of Appeal judgment — application dismissed as time‑barred for inordinate delay. * Time limits — Law of Limitation Act does not apply to Court of Appeal; governed by Court of Appeal Rules. * Cross‑examination — no denial established where party’s counsel did not request re‑summoning. * Abuse of process — frivolous/vexatious review applications discouraged. * Advocate’s error — not sufficient cause to enlarge time.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
A combined bill of High Court and Court of Appeal costs is incompetent; each court's taxing officer must tax its own costs.
Court of Appeal — Taxation of costs — Jurisdiction of taxing officer under rule 118(1) Court of Appeal Rules 1979; High Court costs to be taxed by Registrar/Deputy Registrar under Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules (GN No. 514/1991); combined bill covering both courts incompetent.
|
14 December 2000 |
(From the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Mackanja, J., dated 15 June 1999, in Civil Case No. 358 of 1998) Civil Practice and Procedure - Judgment - Default judgment - Whether default judgment may be entered during mediation proceedings - Order VHIA, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code 1966 Civil Practice and Procedure - Alternative Dispute Resolution - Notice of Mediation - Whether notice of mediation may be a basis for entering a default judgment |
1 December 2000 |
| November 2000 |
|
|
A Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to nullify a parliamentary election after Parliament's dissolution and absence of a sitting member.
* Election law – Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal – Appeal seeking nullification of parliamentary election; effect of Parliament's dissolution on jurisdiction. * Election law – Time limits – Section 115(2) (two-year rule) applies to High Court; appeals must nonetheless be determined expeditiously. * Civil procedure – Inordinate delay in preparation of record – registry responsibility noted but does not cure jurisdictional defect. * Electoral offences – Bribery and treating raised as serious issues but not decided where relief cannot be granted.
|
10 November 2000 |
|
Court lacked jurisdiction to void a parliamentary election post-dissolution; appeal struck out and each party to bear own costs.
* Constitutional/electoral law – election petitions – jurisdiction of appellate court to nullify parliamentary election post-dissolution – necessity of a sitting member and sitting Parliament for relief. * Elections Act 1985 s115(2) – time limits for determination of election petitions; purpose to expedite electoral disputes. * Civil procedure – competence of appeal where record preparation and registry delay produce post-dissolution hearing. * Electoral offences – bribery and treating raised at trial but not determined due to lack of jurisdiction.
|
10 November 2000 |
|
Appeal struck out for lack of jurisdiction because Parliament was dissolved and no sitting member existed to justify nullifying the election.
Electoral law – jurisdiction to invalidate parliamentary election results – effect of dissolution of Parliament on election petitions and appeals; procedural delay and record preparation; application and purpose of Elections Act s.115(2).
|
10 November 2000 |
(From the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Iringa, Mwaikasu, J., dated 15 November 1997, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 1 of. 1995) Election Petitions — Appeals - Delay in processing appeal record - Appeal seeking a declaration that election results were null and void - Appeal called up for hearing after Parliament is dissolved - Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Civil Practice and Procedure - Appeals - Appeals in election petitions - Appeal seeking a declaration that election results were null and void - Appeal seeking the relief after Parliament is dissolved - Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction. |
10 November 2000 |
| October 2000 |
|
|
Leave to appeal granted; party-membership dispute remained live and procedural objections were dismissed.
* Electoral law – party membership – whether membership can be imposed on a person; * Justiciability – whether an application is overtaken by events after an election; * Constitutional law – power to interpret the Constitution of Zanzibar and effect on High Court supervisory jurisdiction; * Civil procedure – admissibility of affidavits and cross-examination.
|
30 October 2000 |
|
A plaint that discloses a cause of action but is ambiguous should be amended, not struck out.
Commercial procedure – preliminary objections to plaint – Order VII R.5 CPC – requirement that plaint show defendant’s interest and liability; cause of action test (four corners of the plaint); misjoinder/vagueness where multiple defendants sued in separate capacities; amendment of pleadings rather than striking out.
|
30 October 2000 |
(Application for Revision from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, Munuo, J., dated 3 May 1996, in (PC) Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1995) Court ofAppeal - Jurisdiction - Suo motu revisional jurisdiction of the Court ofAppeal —Whether the jurisdiction may be invoked where a party forfeits the right of appeal out of his own fault - Section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979. Court ofAppeal — Revisional jurisdiction - May be exercised where the appellate process has been blocked by judicial process - Whether the Court of Appeal Rules amount to a judicial block |
26 October 2000 |
(From the Ruling of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Mapigano, Mkwawa and Bubeshi JJ., dated 24 October 1997, in Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 30 of 1975) Labour Law - Retrenchment of employees - Minister’s decision to confirm retrenchment faulted by the High Court- Whether the High Court is automatically bound to issue the orders of mandamus and certiorari. Prerogative Orders - Application for orders of certiorari and mandamus and certiorari - High Court finds that the Minister’s decision is legally erroneous - Whether High Court has discretion not to grant the orders |
6 October 2000 |
(From the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Chipeta, J., dated 9 August 1999, in Civil Case No. 326 of 1997) Civil Practice and Procedure - Execution - Execution of decree for delivery of immovable property - Whether execution order is necessary for effectual execution - Order XXI, rule 33(f) of Civil Procedure Code 1966. |
5 October 2000 |
|
Reported
Stay refused because the decree was already executed by delivery of possession, leaving nothing to stay.
• Civil procedure — Stay of execution pending appeal — stay cannot be granted where decree already satisfied by delivery of possession.
• Execution of judgment — physical entry or peaceful delivery may complete execution without a formal writ.
• Interlocutory injunction — injunction in separate proceedings does not automatically vitiate possession under a decree if it concerns different subject-matter.
• Capacity/security — issue whether a specified corporation in receivership can bind property by security noted but not decided.
• Procedural — whether an appeal was filed out of time is relevant but not determinative where decree has been executed.
|
5 October 2000 |
| September 2000 |
|
|
Court refused stay of execution pending review for lack of prima facie success and inapplicability of rule 3.
• Civil procedure – Stay of execution – application pending review – requirement of prima facie likelihood of success and potential to render remedy nugatory; • Civil procedure – Court Rules (rule 3) – scope limited to appeals; not readily usable for review applications; • Damages – general damages – no requirement to plead rate of interest; interest is at court’s discretion; • Procedural fairness – opportunity to be heard – absence of hearing only where party was not addressed in record.
|
15 September 2000 |
|
Court entered judgment on defendants' admission, awarding principal, interest at 12% and costs, with payment due by 31 December 2000.
Civil procedure – Admission of liability – Order XII r.4 CPC – Judgment on admission; Loan recovery – interest and payment deadline; Costs awarded to successful plaintiff.
|
11 September 2000 |
(From the Judgment ofthe High Court ofTanzania at Dar es Salaam, Rubama, J., dated 3 August 1990, in Civil Case No. 159 of 1986) jj Civil Practice and Procedure - Ex-parte proof- Application to set aside order for ex-parte proof- Suit dismissed for non-appearance and defendant granted leave to prove counter claim ex parte - Locus standi in subsequent application to restore the suit - Order IX, rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code |
11 September 2000 |
|
A plaintiff dismissed for non-appearance has a statutory right to apply to set aside the dismissal and must be heard.
Civil procedure – dismissal for non-appearance – Order 9 r.8 and r.9 CPC – right to apply to set aside dismissal – locus standi to institute setting-aside application – ex parte proof by affidavit vs oral evidence – procedural fairness.
|
11 September 2000 |
| August 2000 |
|
|
Failure to serve the applicant within seven days at the notified address breached mandatory rule 77(1) and the notice was struck out.
Court Rules 1979 — service of notice of appeal — rule 77(1) mandatory seven-day requirement — rule 77(2) address for service — hearsay evidence on service — breach fatal; strike out under rule 82.
|
25 August 2000 |
|
Applicant granted certificate to determine applicability and effect of the Customary Leasehold (Enfranchisement) Act, 1968.
Appeal procedure – certificate of point of law – Court may issue certificate where allegation of contravention of statute exists; statutory provisions may be considered though not raised by parties – applicability and effect of Customary Leasehold (Enfranchisement) Act, 1968.
|
24 August 2000 |
|
Conviction in absence under s.227 is permissible where attendance cannot be secured and cannot be set aside by later appearance.
* Criminal law – conviction in absence – s.227 Criminal Procedure Act – court may proceed where accused's attendance cannot be secured without undue delay.
* Criminal procedure – distinction between s.226 and s.227 – setting aside convictions in absence (s.226) vs. finality of convictions under s.227 (only appeal available).
* Plea-taking – plea properly taken at initial hearing; no need to retake absent change of charge or other necessity.
* Case-to-answer rulings – no requirement to give reasons unless defence formally submits no case to answer.
* Evidence – possession of stolen vehicle and incriminating exhibits can support conviction where accused declines to defend.
|
11 August 2000 |
| July 2000 |
|
|
Stay pending appeal refused where tenants delayed, defaulted on rent, and balance of convenience favored elderly owners.
Stay of execution – pending appeal – balance of convenience – irreparable harm allegation – tenants’ non-payment of rent – unauthorized erection on premises and assignment of tenancy – stay refused.
|
14 July 2000 |
|
Failure to summon the Attorney General in leave proceedings for prerogative writs renders High Court proceedings null, invalidating subsequent appeals.
* Administrative law – prerogative writs – mandamus, prohibition, certiorari – mandatory summons of the Attorney General under s.17A(1) Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 360) – failure to summon renders proceedings null and void ab initio; * Appellate procedure – requirement of valid High Court proceedings as prerequisite for Court of Appeal jurisdiction and for revision of lower court decisions.
|
10 July 2000 |
|
An applicant must show sufficient reason for delay; merits alone cannot justify extending time to appeal.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – sufficient reason required for delay – applicant’s prolonged inaction and negligence fatal to application.
* Appeal procedure – merits of intended appeal not a substitute for showing sufficient cause; merits considered only after sufficient cause established.
* Limitation rules – rules of time and procedure must be enforced; extension exceptional where appeal raises fundamental legality.
|
5 July 2000 |
|
Interlocutory High Court ruling overruling preliminary objection is not appealable as of right; leave to appeal required.
Appealability — Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.5(1)(c) — Law Reform Ordinance s.17(2) and s.17(5) — automatic right of appeal limited to final determinations under s.17(2) — interlocutory rulings overruling procedural objections not appealable as of right — requirement to join Attorney General in ex parte leave proceedings — appropriate remedy to challenge ex parte leave is by appeal when leave was granted.
|
5 July 2000 |
|
Applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying revisional jurisdiction instead of the appellate process.
* Civil procedure – Revision jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal – Circumstances warranting revision as alternative to appeal – Halais categories considered; fraud and apparent error on face of record not established. * Probate – striking out notice of appeal for failure to institute appeal – appellate process terminated, not blocked. * Abuse of process – application inappropriate where appellate remedy available and not shown to be obstructed.
|
5 July 2000 |
| June 2000 |
|
(From the Ruling of the High Court ofTanzania at Dar es Salaam, Katiti, J., dated 25 May 2000, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1999) Civil Practice and Procedure - Preliminary objection - Meaning and tests of what constitutes a preliminary objection. |
30 June 2000 |
|
Reported
A preliminary objection that an injunction application was overtaken by events failed because it did not meet the Mukisa test.
Civil procedure — Preliminary objection — Overtaken by event — Application for temporary and mandatory injunctions restraining issuance/renewal of licences — Mukisa Biscuit test applied: objection must raise a pure point of law on ascertained facts and dispose of the matter — objection failing where pending/future actions remain and relief sought extends beyond exhibited facts.
|
30 June 2000 |
|
A notice of appeal does not automatically stay execution; an applicant must show irreparable harm or other proper grounds.
* Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Lodgement of notice of appeal does not automatically stay execution – Rule 9(2)(b) confers discretionary power. * Grounds for stay – substantial irreparable loss, prevention of rendering appeal nugatory, balance of convenience; list not closed. * Mere prospect of success on appeal is generally insufficient to obtain stay.
|
7 June 2000 |
| May 2000 |
|
|
Appellant entitled to commercial-rate pre-judgment interest and costs where principal was paid before judgment.
Government proceedings – proper respondent is Attorney General; Sale of goods – payment dispute – pre-judgment interest payable at commercial rate where principal paid before judgment; Statutory/judgment interest (7–12%) applies to post-judgment period only; Costs follow event where claimed.
|
14 May 2000 |
(From the Decision and Order of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Mapigano, J., dated 19 February 1999, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 42 of 1995) Mining Law - Prerogative orders - Enabling provisions for applications for prerogative orders - Whether the Mining Act 1979 has provisions for applications for prerogative orders.Limitation - Limitation period for applications for prerogative orders |
12 May 2000 |
|
Reported
An application for prerogative relief must be instituted within six months of the impugned administrative act; late leave is incompetent.
Judicial review – prerogative orders (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition) – limitation: six‑month rule under Law Reform Act s.18(2) – triggering event is the administrative act complained of (original licence grant) – leave must be sought within six months – procedural competence of review applications.
|
12 May 2000 |
|
An application for leave to seek prerogative relief is time‑barred if filed more than six months after the contested public act.
Prerogative orders – certiorari/mandamus/prohibition – Law Reform Act (Act No.55/1968) s.18 – six‑month limitation for leave in respect of executive acts or omissions – subsection (3) confined to judicial/quasi‑judicial proceedings – date of act is date of licence instrument – absence of Chief Justice rules does not extend statutory six‑month ceiling.
|
12 May 2000 |
|
Reported
Revision is proper where an order rejecting review is not appealable; drawn order need not accompany review memorandum.
Civil procedure – Revision jurisdiction where no appeal lies – Order XLII Rule 7(1) prohibits appeal of orders rejecting review; mutatis mutandis in Order XLII Rule 3 applies to form only – No requirement to attach drawn order to memorandum for review where same court/file – Striking out for omission was erroneous.
|
10 May 2000 |
(From the decision ofthe High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Mackanja, J., dated 3 March 1999, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 2 of 1998) Civil Practice and Procedure — Appeal — Appeal from ruling ofthe High Court - Whether a ruling of the High Court rejecting an application for review can be appealed against - Section 5(l)(c ) ofthe Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979 and Order XLII, rule 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Code 1966. Civil Practice and Procedure - Review -Application for Review not accompanied by a copy ofthe drawn order sought to be reviewed — Whether fatal to the application - Order XL, rule 2, Order XLII, rule, and Order XXXIX, rule 1(1) ofthe Civil Procedure Code 1966. |
10 May 2000 |
|
Failure to extract the order renders an appeal incompetent and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant withdrawal or extension orders.
Civil procedure — failure to extract decree/order — appeal to Court of Appeal incompetent; Jurisdiction — High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant withdrawal/extension where no appeal is properly before it; Appellate revisionary powers — Court of Appeal may set aside High Court orders made without jurisdiction and substitute orders striking out incompetent appeals; Duty of counsel to obtain necessary extracted orders.
|
10 May 2000 |
| April 2000 |
|
|
Reported
Appeals from Zanzibar district courts require leave but not a certificate on a point of law; reference dismissed with costs.
* Appellate procedure – Appellate Jurisdiction Act – application to Zanzibar – s.3(2),(3) construed to import corresponding Zanzibar provisions; * Appeals from Zanzibar district courts – require leave only, not certificate on point of law; * Appeals from primary courts in Zanzibar – require certificate on point of law analogous to Mainland position; * Leave to appeal – granted where reasonable prospects or matters of public importance/miscarriage of justice; * Rule 89(2) – its operation vis-à-vis Zanzibar hierarchy and need for accommodation; * Civil procedure – concurrent factual findings will not be disturbed absent misdirection or miscarriage of justice.
|
11 April 2000 |
|
Applicant cannot use review to re‑open the Court’s judgment; only narrow grounds like error apparent permit review.
Civil procedure – Review of court’s own judgment – Limited grounds: error apparent on face of record, fraud, party not heard, lack of jurisdiction – Disagreement with outcome (including alleged exchange‑rate computation error) is not a ground for review but an appeal.
|
9 April 2000 |
| March 2000 |
|
|
|
21 March 2000 |
|
Court of Appeal cannot tax an advocate's instruction fee when the advocate also represented the party in the High Court.
* Civil Procedure – Taxation of costs – Jurisdiction of taxing officer – Rule 118(3) Court of Appeal Rules – Advocate's remuneration to be taxed in High Court where advocate was retained there; Court of Appeal may tax remuneration only if advocate was first retained for the matter in the Court of Appeal. * Procedure – Two separate bills of costs should be filed and taxed by taxing officers of the respective courts when proceedings span High Court and Court of Appeal.
|
8 March 2000 |
|
Reported
An appellate court may grant an interim injunction to preserve the status quo where alleged redundancy breaches statutory consultation.
Civil procedure – interim injunction pending appeal; appellate inherent jurisdiction; appeal lies from refusal of interlocutory injunction; preservation of status quo where redundancy without statutory consultation is alleged; balance of convenience and comparative hardship.
|
6 March 2000 |
(From the Decision ofthe High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Manento, J., dated 16 December 1999, in Civil Case No. 422 of 1999) Civil Practice and Procedure - Temporary injunction - Whether an appeal lies against an order granting or refusing to grant. Civil Practice and Procedure — Statutory requirement to consult with workers on intended redundancy - Whether an application for a temporary injunction may be granted before consultation takes place |
6 March 2000 |
| February 2000 |
|
|
Whether a 3% charge of the decretal sum for opposing a notice of motion is taxable under the 9th Schedule.
Costs — Taxation of bill of costs — Claim for percentage of decretal sum as advocates’ charges for opposing a notice of motion — Application of 9th Schedule to Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules, 1991; uncontested scale items; role of taxing officer where respondent does not oppose.
|
9 February 2000 |
|
Court taxed the unopposed bill of costs at Shs.26,526,220, finding items conformed to the prescribed scales.
Costs – Taxation of bill of costs – Items claimed according to scale – Claim of one‑third of decretal sum under 9th Schedule to Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules, 1991 – Unopposed bill taxed in full.
|
9 February 2000 |
| January 2000 |
|
|
Affidavit by applicant’s legal adviser based on personal knowledge suffices; preliminary objection dismissed with costs.
Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 46(1): affidavit must be sworn by a person having knowledge of the facts; verification clause and disclosure of source — affidavit by legal adviser with personal knowledge held sufficient; preliminary objection under Rule 100 dismissed.
|
27 January 2000 |
|
|
1 January 2000 |
|
A valid notice of appeal must be lodged at the High Court registry where the decision was given before a stay of execution can be entertained.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Notice of appeal – Rule 76 read with Rule 78 requires notice to be lodged at the High Court registry where the decision was given; Registrar to transmit copy to appropriate Court of Appeal registry; application for stay of execution incompetent without valid notice of appeal filed at appropriate sub-registry.
|
1 January 2000 |
|
Appeal against murder conviction and death sentence arising from a dispute over a piece of sugar cane.
Criminal law – murder conviction and death sentence – factual altercation over a piece of sugar cane; appellate review (judgment text incomplete).
|
1 January 2000 |
|
Appellant’s psychiatric evidence established probable insanity; trial judge erred in rejecting the expert report and mischaracterising the killing.
Criminal law – insanity defence – psychiatric report indicating schizophrenia – trial judge’s rejection of expert evidence – misdirection by importing witchcraft – behaviour after offence as evidence of unsoundness of mind.
|
1 January 2000 |