|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2001 |
|
|
Amendments supplying further particulars that do not introduce new allegations do not oblige a fresh reply; supplied particulars were sufficient and each party bears own costs.
* Election law – election petition – amended petition supplying further particulars – whether amendment requiring fresh reply or dates back to original petition.
* Civil procedure – pleadings – effect of amendment that only furnishes further and better particulars; failure to reply to such amendment not automatically admission/ex parte judgment under Order 8 rule 14(1).
* Evidence/particulars – sufficiency of particulars for corrupt practices (names, dates, times, locations, vehicles) to enable defence.
* Costs – appropriateness of costs order where only partial compliance with court directions.
|
27 December 2001 |
|
An application to restore a dismissed application filed after 30 days without leave or explanation is time-barred and is struck out.
Civil procedure — Restoration of application — Time bar — Court of Appeal Rules, rule 58(4) — Application to restore must be filed within 30 days — Leave required to file out of time — Failure to explain delay fatal — Application struck out.
|
24 December 2001 |
|
Appeal struck out where applications were founded on the wrong case; matrimonial home requires spouse’s consent and caveat protection.
* Property law – matrimonial home – alienation by mortgage or sale – spouse’s consent required; * Civil procedure – wrong basis of proceedings – applications founded on a suit that did not order sale/foreclosure are misconceived; * Land registration – protection by caveat – failure to lodge caveat may leave mortgagee unaware of matrimonial interest.
|
19 December 2001 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where dispute was premature and required referral to the Workers' Union Branch; costs awarded.
Civil procedure – Leave to appeal – Leave granted only where prima facie grounds of appeal are disclosed; Jurisdiction – Preliminary objection under voluntary agreement requiring referral to Workers' Union Branch renders suit premature; Procedural requirements – failure to attach lower court ruling to application; Right to be heard – absence of advocate does not automatically amount to denial of opportunity to address court.
|
13 December 2001 |
|
Non‑compliance with prescribed Form A, missing signature/date and mis‑citation of enabling law warranted striking out the notice of motion.
Court of Appeal procedure – application for stay of execution; compliance with Rule 45(2)/Form A; requirement for proper signature and date; mis-citation of enabling provisions; when non‑compliance is fatal or curable by amendment.
|
7 December 2001 |
| November 2001 |
|
|
Reported
Agency - Suspension of agent - Agent transacts business during suspension -
Whether agent entitled to commission.
Agency - Agent suspended - Agent transacts business partly using facilities of
the principal - Whether agent entitled to same amount of commission.
Agency - Agents right to remuneration - General rule and exceptions to the
general Rule - Calculation of agents commission. |
25 November 2001 |
|
Allocation made during villagisation was valid; respondent’s delayed claim was time‑barred, so lower court decision restored.
* Land law – village land allocation – validity of reallocation where original occupant left during villagisation (Operation Vijiji). * Evidence – evaluation of occupation and development of land at time of allocation; appellate review of High Court misdirection. * Limitation – claim for possession barred by lapse of statutory limitation period. * Civil procedure – restoration of concurrent lower court decision where higher court misdirected on facts.
|
19 November 2001 |
|
Filing a notice of appeal does not automatically stay execution; applicant must prove merits, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience.
Court Rules – Rule 9(2) – stay of execution – lodging notice of appeal does not automatically suspend execution; applicant must show prima facie prospects of success, substantial and irreparable loss, and balance of convenience; timeliness of appeal depends on when judgment was read to parties.
|
16 November 2001 |
|
Reported
Declaratory claims prescribe in six years; trespass accrues at seizure, conversion on demand and refusal.
Limitation law — declaratory relief prescribes in six years; torts — trespass to goods accrues on date of wrongful seizure and is actionable per se; conversion accrues on demand and refusal; partial prescription can render some causes time-barred while others remain actionable.
|
14 November 2001 |
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure - Limitation of Actions - Action for declaratory
orders - Limitation period for an action for declaratory orders - Law of
Limitation Act 1971, first Schedule, Part I, item 24.
Limitation of Actions - Torts -Action for the tort of trespass to goods - Point in
time when the tort becomes actionable.
Torts - Tort of Conversion -..Factors constituting the tort of conversion.
Limitation of Actions — Torts - Tort of conversion - Running of time against an
action for conversion - Point when time starts to run. |
14 November 2001 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause to restore a dismissed reference due to unreliable medical evidence and no corroboration.
Civil procedure — Restoration of dismissed reference — Sufficiency of cause under rule 105(1); Evidentiary value of medical certificates — requirement for proper form and corroboration; Reliance on third‑party conduct — need for supporting affidavit or evidence.
|
13 November 2001 |
| October 2001 |
|
|
Reported
Principal's failure to notify third parties of agent's suspension can create liability to pay commission for good-faith transactions.
Agency law – suspension/termination – general rule no commission during suspension – exceptions (transactions in progress; express term; contractual construction; repeat orders) – principal’s duty to notify third parties – failure to notify renders principal liable – quantum: implied contract for reasonable remuneration.
|
25 October 2001 |
|
A dismissed or expired probate caveat ceases to exist and cannot be revived; subsequent caveat proceedings are void.
Probate law – Caveat – Expiry and dismissal of caveat – Effect of dismissal: caveat ceases to exist and cannot be revived or renewed – Proceedings in respect of an expired/dismissed caveat are void – Letters of administration.
|
22 October 2001 |
| September 2001 |
|
|
|
30 September 2001 |
|
Reported
Res judicata bars the applicant's subsequent suit since the same issues and a determination of the loan existed earlier.
Civil procedure — Res judicata — Section 9 and Explanation IV — Issues directly and substantially in earlier suit; preclusion of matters that could and ought to have been raised; prior determination of contract rendering subsequent breach claims unenforceable.
|
30 September 2001 |
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure - Res judicata - In the previous case the plaintiff,
sued the defendant for a declaration that he (the plaintiff) was not in
breach of agreement with the defendant and for an order determining the < agreement - In the subsequent suit the same plaintiffsues the same
defendant for a declaration that it was the defendant who was in breach
of the agreement - Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies - Section
9 of the Civil Procedure Code 1966. |
30 September 2001 |
|
Res judicata barred the applicant's suit; prior judgment had determined the loan agreement, rendering subsequent claims untenable.
Civil procedure – res judicata (section 9 CPC and Explanation IV) – issues which might and ought to have been raised earlier; Determination of contract – effect of prior declaration that agreement is determined; Abuse of court process – successive suits on same cause of action.
|
30 September 2001 |
|
Reported
Article 83(4) allows appeals as of right only from final High Court determinations on election validity, not routine interlocutory orders.
* Constitutional law – article 83(4) – scope of right of appeal in election petitions – limited to final High Court determinations on election legality or vacancy; interlocutory orders only if they finally dispose of the matter. * Appellate procedure – relation between article 83(4) and section 5(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – constitutional provision is primary; where article 83(4) does not apply appeals governed by section 5(1) (leave required). * Precedent – Ngalai v Salakana distinguished as having been interpreted too widely.
|
20 September 2001 |
| August 2001 |
|
|
Court quashed bail refusal for reliance on repealed law and ordered a fresh High Court bail hearing.
Criminal procedure – bail – substitution of charges while bail pending; Drugs Act – proper classification of methaqualone/"mandrax" as psychotropic; Judicial error – reliance on repealed statutory provision – quashing of decision and ordering rehearing.
|
21 August 2001 |
|
Partition without required surveyor consent is invalid; occupier may seek compensation from the seller, not beneficiaries.
Land law – Partition of land – requirement of Chief Land Surveyor’s consent – partition and transfer invalid without compliance; Succession/estate – beneficiaries’ title where partition invalid; Occupier’s rights – eviction with compensation for improvements payable by seller, not beneficiaries.
|
21 August 2001 |
|
Court of Appeal may stay execution despite garnishee orders; deposit in court does not complete execution.
Stay of execution – Court of Appeal’s power under Rule 9(2)(b) – effect of notice of appeal on execution – garnishee orders – deposit into court does not complete execution – relevance of section 38 Civil Procedure Code – Order XXI r.5(3) interpretation.
|
17 August 2001 |
|
Execution stayed pending appeal because the garnishee order showed erroneous, excessive calculations and raised arguable grounds.
* Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Rule 9(2)(b) Court Rules – discretionary exercise – balance of convenience and problematic judgment or order.
* Execution against bank under garnishee order – requirement that amount levied corresponds with decretal amount and correctly calculated interest.
* Appeal – notice of appeal not automatically suspensive; stay may be appropriate where decree or garnishee order is materially erroneous.
|
17 August 2001 |
(From the decision ofthe High Court ofTanzania at Dar es Salaam, Mackanja, J. dated 19 December 1994, in Criminal Appeal Case No. 158 of 1993) Evidence - Identification of offender - Offender not named by witnesses when the first opportunity presented itself- Offender named after sometime — Credibility ofwitnesses. Evidence - Statement purported to be a confession - Statement never put in evidence - Statement repudiated - Whether Court can act on it. |
10 August 2001 |
|
Appellate court quashes conviction where identification and alleged confession were unreliable, rendering conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – identification evidence – failure to name suspect at earliest opportunity and delay in arrest undermines reliability; Confession – statement not admitted or proved should not be treated as confession; Appellate review – limited to matters of law but may intervene where findings of fact are perverse or conviction unsafe; Totality of evidence – conviction must be quashed if safety is compromised.
|
10 August 2001 |
|
Bail improperly cancelled; attempted murder is bailable and no changed circumstances justified revocation, so bail was restored.
* Criminal law – Bail – Attempted murder is a bailable offence. * Bail revocation – A judge should not cancel bail granted by another judge absent clear, changed circumstances. * Evidence – Production of medical report (PF3) does not automatically justify revocation of bail. * Procedure – No bail application before the judge; court cannot act as though one exists.
|
9 August 2001 |
|
Whether an unimplemented voluntary agreement later registered as an Industrial Court award bars a prior High Court claim.
* Labour law – Industrial Court Act s.39(4) – proviso renders a voluntary agreement operative three months after submission for registration irrespective of actual registration date; effect on jurisdiction and res judicata. * Jurisdiction – High Court entitlement to hear claims where agreement was not yet implementable. * Retrenchment – timing of retrenchment and filing compared with implementation date determines preclusive effect of agreement.
|
9 August 2001 |
(From the decision ofthe High Court ofTanzania at Dar es Salaam, Chipeta, J. dated 1 September 1998, in Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 41 of 1997) |
9 August 2001 |
|
Court upheld conditional release of detained cargo requiring US$50,000 security and affirmed agent’s joint liability for port dues.
Port law – security for release of detained cargo – court may order deposit approximating claimed dues when respondent has large counterclaim; Agency – principal and agent jointly and severally liable for port dues; Evidence/procedure – refusal of near-expiry bank guarantee need not be expressly justified; interlocutory orders – matters of delay or inability to pay are for main suit determination.
|
7 August 2001 |
|
Primary Court proceedings found a nullity due to assessor irregularities and plaintiff's lack of capacity to sue.
* Civil procedure – Primary Court judgment validity – absence of assessors' signatures; * Capacity – suit instituted before appointment as administrator – effect on competence of proceedings; * Procedural irregularity – substitution of assessors who did not hear evidence – no statutory basis for such change; * Remedy – cumulative irregularities render proceedings a nullity and justify setting aside.
|
2 August 2001 |
|
Primary Court proceedings were a nullity due to unsigned assessors' judgment, improper assessor substitution, and lack of plaintiff's capacity.
* Civil procedure – Magistrates' Courts – Assessors' duties and signatures – Absence of assessors' signatures on judgment invalidates proceedings.
* Civil procedure – Assessors – Improper change/substitution of assessors (opinions given by assessors who did not hear evidence) – no statutory authority – renders decision invalid.
* Capacity to sue – Plaintiff instituting suit before appointment as administrator of deceased's estate – lack of locus standi/capacity vitiates proceedings.
* Appeal – summary dismissal and cumulative procedural irregularities justify setting aside prior proceedings.
|
2 August 2001 |
| July 2001 |
|
|
Registrar's failure to issue citation vitiated contested probate proceedings; matter remitted for proper trial, grant remains in force.
Probate and Administration — Caveat and citation — Registrar's failure to issue citation under Rule 82(3) — Contested petition to proceed as suit under s.59(3) and s.52(b) — Procedural irregularity vitiating proceedings — Revocation of grant without trial or reasons invalid.
|
31 July 2001 |
|
Reported
Conviction quashed due to unreliable microfilm evidence and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Economic and Organized Crime – proof beyond reasonable doubt; Evidence – admissibility and authenticity of microfilm/secondary evidence; chain of custody; Evidence Act ss 78–79; improper reliance on unrecorded witness statement.
|
30 July 2001 |
(From the decision ofthe High Court ofTanzania at Dar es Salaam, Bubeshi, J. 4 dated 2 July 1999, in Economic Crime Case No. 3 of 1997) Criminal Practice and Procedure - Exhibits - Custody ofExhibits - Need to know in whose custody Exhibits were kept. Evidence - Proof- Proofofperson who made microfilms and person who kepi custody or control of the same - Section 78 of the Evidence Act 1967. Evidence - Proof- Failure to examine copy with the original - Effect cfsuch failure - Section 79 of the Evidence Act 1967 |
30 July 2001 |
|
Reported
|
27 July 2001 |
|
Appeal dismissed: missing court records and non-joinder allegations did not establish unlawful detention or require judge's recusal.
Criminal procedure – remand and detention – sufficiency of primary court records and prison registers to impugn lawfulness of incarceration; Civil procedure – non-joinder – must be raised at proper stage (Order 13); Judicial conduct – recusal/disqualification – allegations of bias must establish disqualifying appearance; Appeal – procedural and evidential insufficiency warrants dismissal.
|
24 July 2001 |
(From the Judgment ofthe High Court ofTanzania at Dar es Salaam, Ihema, J. dated 20 September 1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1999) Criminal Law - Theft - Doctrine ofrecent possession - Accused explains how he got possession ofthe stolen goods - Whether the doctrine may properlv apply. Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing - Sentencing powers on appeal — Whether appellate Court may interfere with sentence of a lower Court v Criminal Practice and Procedure - Appeal - Evaluation of evidence on appeal — Powers of appellate Court - Whether appellate Court may evaluate the evidence afresh. |
23 July 2001 |
(From the judgment ofthe High Court ofTanzania at Mbeva, Mchome, J. dated 11 jj March 1994, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 63 and 71 of 1993) |
13 July 2001 |
|
Reported
High Court improperly admitted cautioned statements in appellants' absence; nonetheless convictions for robbery and conspiracy were upheld.
* Criminal procedure – admission of cautioned statements – necessity of presence of accused or advocate when taking additional evidence on appeal – requirement of trial-within-a-trial where voluntariness is disputed – expunging improperly admitted confessions.
* Evidence – reading documents before formal admission prejudicial and improper.
* Criminal procedure – section 225 Criminal Procedure Act – adjournments aggregating over sixty days without statutory certificates are irregular but do not render trial void.
* Substantive criminal law – sufficiency of circumstantial and direct evidence to sustain convictions for robbery with violence and conspiracy.
|
13 July 2001 |
| June 2001 |
|
|
Issue estoppel applies in Tanzanian criminal cases and precluded retrial on a previously decided factual issue.
Criminal law — Issue estoppel — Applicability in criminal proceedings in Tanzania; distinction from autrefois (double jeopardy) and estoppel by representation; prior judicial finding of fact binding the prosecution in subsequent trial between same parties; conviction quashed where prosecution estopped.
|
28 June 2001 |
|
Reported
Issue estoppel applies in Tanzanian criminal trials and can bar prosecution from relitigating previously decided factual issues.
Criminal law — Issue estoppel applicable in criminal trials in Tanzania; distinction between issue estoppel and autrefois acquit; prosecution estopped from relitigating factual issues already decided in accused’s favour; courts may quash convictions on that ground; revisional powers to expunge convictions.
|
28 June 2001 |
|
Reported
Appeals - Appeals to the Court of Appeal - Requirement of leave to appeal
under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979 -- Written law providing for
automatic right of appeal - Whether leave to appeal is still necessary
requirement - Section 5(1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979 and
section 17(5) of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Ordinance Chapter 360.
Natural Justice - Right to be heard - Right of Occupancy revoked after receipt
of a letter from the respondent explaining why his right of occupancy
should not be revoked - Whether there was breach of natural justice. |
21 June 2001 |
|
A revocation for failure to meet express title-deed building conditions is justified even absent stated reasons; appeal allowed with costs.
Land law – revocation of occupancy/title – compliance with title-deed conditions (building per approved plans; completion deadline) – natural justice – requirement to give reasons for administrative revocation – presumption that submissions were considered – failure to obtain municipal approval – revocation justified.
|
21 June 2001 |
|
Respondents’ failure to pursue certified copies and reapply for leave amounted to abandonment; notice of appeal struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – striking out notice of appeal – failure to take essential steps (obtain certified copies, reapply for leave) – struck out under Court Rules; duty of party diligence vs. registry delay; application struck out ceases to exist.
|
20 June 2001 |
|
Applicant’s review allowed in part: general damages upheld, interest fixed and backdated, defamation finding sustained.
Civil procedure — Review of Court of Appeal judgment — Award of unpleaded general damages — Power to grant general relief; Post-judgment interest — governed by Order 20 Rule 21 but court’s awarded rate and commencement date; Defamation — adequacy of opportunity to contest issue on appeal.
|
11 June 2001 |
| May 2001 |
|
|
Application to strike out notice of appeal dismissed; respondent’s delays excused and appeal properly pursued.
Civil procedure – striking out notice of appeal; delay and inactivity – whether prolonged inactivity amounts to abandonment; due diligence – reminders to Registrar and counsel’s illness; leave to appeal granted; applicant’s delay in seeking relief.
|
30 May 2001 |
|
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding denial of readmission and finding no prejudice from omitted land-officer evidence.
Civil procedure – readmission of appeal – want of prosecution – counsel’s repeated absence and lack of diligence; Evidence – non-production of land officer – revocation of title – whether omission prejudiced appellant; Jurisdiction – section 22(2) Land Ordinance – objection to forum – raising jurisdictional issues at any stage.
|
29 May 2001 |
|
A stay of execution was granted because the intended appeal raised a serious jurisdictional issue and security was not required.
* Civil procedure – stay of execution – application raising serious question as to trial court's jurisdiction – stay appropriate pending appeal – security not ordered where respondents vague and not strongly opposed.
|
16 May 2001 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause to restore an appeal or to extend time to join a legal representative; appeal had abated and application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – restoration of appeal dismissed for non-appearance – requirement to show 'sufficient cause' under Order XXXIX Rule 19; Limitation law – death of sole appellant – requirement to join legal representative within 90 days under First Schedule to the Limitation Act – failure to do so causes abatement; Section 14 Limitation Act – principles for condonation of delay and discretionary nature of extension of time; procedural impropriety of raising preliminary objections to affidavits in concluding submissions.
|
11 May 2001 |
| April 2001 |
|
|
Failure to hear the applicant, a necessary party, vitiated the High Court decision; revision granted.
* Administrative law – natural justice – audi alteram partem – failure to hear an affected third party vitiates proceedings. * Revisionary jurisdiction – appropriate where affected person not a party and has no right of appeal. * Joinder – cannot be required where party had no notice of proceedings.
|
25 April 2001 |
|
Petitioners may commence human-rights claims by petition or originating summons; certiorari is excluded but wide remedies exist.
* Constitutional and human-rights jurisdiction – Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, 1994 – Interpretation of section 5: petition v originating summons – reading in ‘or’ to avoid absurdity. * Procedural law – access to court for human-rights complaints – liberal construction to facilitate remedies. * Jurisdictional limits – section 8(k) excludes Part VII (prerogative orders) of the Law Reform Ordinance (Cap. 360) for purposes of the Act – certiorari not available under the Act. * Remedies – wide powers under section 13(1) and (3) to grant necessary and appropriate orders to secure basic rights.
|
25 April 2001 |