|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2007 |
|
|
Consent judgments may be attacked in principle, but this cross-division suit was an improper vehicle and appeal is dismissed.
* Civil procedure – Consent judgments – Whether consent decree allegedly procured by fraud, undue influence or coercion can be set aside by separate suit or only by review/appeal. * Jurisdiction – Division vs registry – limits on one High Court division ordering another judge/registry to resume proceedings. * Remedies – review under Order XLII and appeal with leave as primary domestic remedies for attacking consent judgments.
|
28 December 2007 |
|
Time‑barred applications must be dismissed; striking out does not permit refiling—the proper remedy is an appeal.
* Limitation of actions — Time-barred proceedings — Proceedings instituted after prescribed period must be dismissed (Law of Limitation Act s.3, s.46).
* Distinction between "striking out" and "dismissing" — substance over form; a time-barred application is effectively dismissed.
* Prerogative orders — leave to apply for certiorari/mandamus subject to limitation provisions (Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act s.19(3)).
* Procedural remedy — once dismissed for delay, applicants must appeal; they cannot refile the same cause in the High Court.
|
28 December 2007 |
|
Applicants’ reference dismissed for failing to show sufficient grounds to extend time to lodge an appeal.
* Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – requirement to lodge memorandum and record of appeal within 60 days (Rule 83(1)) – adequacy of reasons for delay.
* Civil procedure – effect of separate objection/execution proceedings by a third party on accused party’s right and duty to institute appeal.
* Civil procedure – limits on High Court’s power to grant extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
* Procedural compliance – responsibility of appellant to lodge appeal where records are available.
|
24 December 2007 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification was unsafe, confession's voluntariness unproven, and absent-witness statements improperly admitted.
Criminal law - robbery with violence; identification evidence - visual identification unreliable where victim did not know accused and gave no descriptive particulars (Waziri Aman); confession - caution statement inadmissible absent proof of voluntariness (ss.27-29, Evidence Act); hearsay/absent witnesses - inadmissible where s.34 conditions unmet; burden of proof - prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
21 December 2007 |
|
Reported
A consent judgment may in proper cases be challenged by separate suit, but here the relief sought improperly attempted to direct another judge and was dismissed.
Civil procedure – consent judgments – remedies for challenging consent decrees (review or appeal with leave) – possibility of separate suit in a proper case; Abuse of process – cross-division orders within same High Court; Jurisdiction – limits on one division ordering another judge to reopen concluded matters.
|
21 December 2007 |
|
The appeal was struck out because the notice of appeal was time-barred and the prison notice procedure under Rule 68 was not followed.
Criminal procedure – Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 61(1) (notice of appeal), Rule 68 (prisoners’ notice procedure) – requirement to give written notice to officer-in-charge and endorsement/forwarding – non-compliance defeats time exclusion – competence of appeal – striking out where notice time-barred – Rule 44/R.8 applications for enlargement of time must follow striking out.
|
21 December 2007 |
|
A preliminary objection must be a pure legal point; respondent's factual objections were not preliminary and were dismissed.
* Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Must raise a pure point of law capable of disposal on pleadings (Mukisa test).
* Civil procedure – Revision v. alternative remedies – Competence of revision where restoration of dismissed application is available.
* Civil procedure – Failure to file written submissions – treated as absence for hearing, but whether that bars revision depends on facts and available remedies.
* Exceptional circumstances/illegality – basis for revision where serious impropriety may warrant intervention (Halais/SGS authorities referenced).
|
19 December 2007 |
|
Extension of time refused where alleged registry delay was unsupported by sworn evidence and applicant offered no sufficient reason.
* Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 8 and section 15(1)(c) — Requirement to show "sufficient reason" by admissible evidence.
* Administrative delay — Alleged registry inefficiency cannot justify delay unless supported by sworn evidence from registry officials.
* Evidence — Minute sheets and unsworn administrative records are not substitute for affidavit evidence.
* Time limits — Parties must act promptly once documents are available; failure to do so is not excused without satisfactory explanation.
|
19 December 2007 |
|
A time‑barred application cannot be revived by refiling in the High Court; the remedy is appeal, not a fresh suit.
Civil procedure; limitation of actions – time‑barred applications under the Law of Limitation Act – dismissal versus striking out; prerogative orders – requirement to seek extension of time under section 14(1); remedy against dismissal is appeal to Court of Appeal; relitigation in High Court after limitation determination barred.
|
18 December 2007 |
|
Stay of execution refused where transfer and registration of disputed title made a stay ineffective.
* Civil procedure – Stay of execution – application overtaken by event where disputed title transferred and registered – stay serves no practical purpose.
* Court rules – specific provision for stay of execution governs; general rule-making power cannot be invoked where specific rule applies.
* Land law – effect of registration and transfer of Certificate of Title on pending appeals.
* Contempt/discipline – alleged initiation of fresh proceedings while appeal pending to be investigated.
|
18 December 2007 |
|
Victim identification inadequate and co-accused confessions insufficient alone; recent possession sustained only the first appellant's conviction.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – need for careful scrutiny where victim is sole identifying witness. * Evidence – Cautioned/confessional statements – requirement that voluntariness be ascertainable on the record in subordinate courts. * Evidence Act s.33 – co-accused confessions may assist but cannot solely ground conviction. * Doctrine of recent possession – recent possession of stolen property may sustain inference of participation in theft/robbery.
|
17 December 2007 |
|
Convictions quashed because the trial court was not duly constituted and identification evidence was unreliable; appellants released.
* Criminal law – Robbery with violence – reliance on visual and voice identification – requirements for reliable identification and dangers of identification evidence at night.
* Constitutional/Statutory competence – Magistrates' Courts Act (Cap 11) – requirement that a Resident Magistrate constitute a Resident Magistrate's Court – proceedings held by an improperly constituted court are nullities.
* Criminal procedure – nullity of trial due to lack of proper constitution of court; appellate discretion whether to order retrial where prosecution case is weak and accused have suffered prolonged detention.
|
13 December 2007 |
|
Visual and voice identification upheld; robbery elements proved and fifteen-year sentences revised to statutory thirty years.
* Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Visual and voice identification – requirements for reliability and when voice identification is acceptable. * Evidence – Competence and corroboration – family-member witnesses and s.127(1) Evidence Act. * Sentencing – Minimum Sentence provisions – robbery while armed and/or in company and use of personal violence attracts statutory minimum 30 years. * Appellate jurisdiction – invocation of revisional powers to correct illegal or incorrect sentences and to vary sentences of non-appealing co-accused where illegal.
|
12 December 2007 |
|
Execution stayed where demolition of applicants' homes would cause irreparable, unquantifiable loss and balance favoured a stay.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Principles: irreparable loss not compensable by damages; preventing nugatory appeal; balance of convenience – Demolition of homes causes unquantifiable harm – Stay granted pending appeal.
|
7 December 2007 |
|
Subordinate courts cannot vary mandatory bail conditions; statutory deposit may be shared among jointly charged persons.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Mandatory statutory bail conditions for economic offences – Subordinate courts lack power to vary bail in favour of accused (power reserved to High Court) – Evidence: partial/provisional testimony cannot justify varying mandatory bail terms – Interpretation of Laws Act s.8(c): "person" may include "persons" permitting shared deposit among jointly charged defendants.
|
1 December 2007 |
| November 2007 |
|
|
Circumstantial evidence of conduct and documents can establish knowledge for drug importation; appeal dismissed and sentences upheld.
Criminal law – Illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs – Knowledge/mens rea proven by circumstantial conduct and documentary trail; Search and seizure – opening container without warrant permissible under emergency provisions where no prejudice shown; Evidence – non-production of seizure documents or laboratory sample goes to weight not admissibility; Sentencing – ten-year maximum sentence upheld; Confiscation – vehicle used in commission of offence liable to forfeiture under statute.
|
23 November 2007 |
|
Appeal struck out because the decree did not bear the judgment date as required by law.
Civil Procedure - Decree - Order XX Rule 7: decree must bear date of judgment; appellate record must contain valid decree. Appeal - incompetence for defective decree - striking out. Limitation - date of decree governs appeal period and execution rights.
|
18 November 2007 |
|
Premature cross-appeal filing is curable; unproven special damages fail and 7% interest was reasonable.
* Civil procedure – Cross-appeal – premature filing of notice of cross-appeal before service of memorandum – competence where no miscarriage of justice.
* Evidence – Special damages – burden to prove loss of business by accounts/receipts – failure to prove warrants rejection.
* Civil procedure – Interest on judgment debts – reasonableness of statutory 7% rate; no basis to increase to 12%.
|
13 November 2007 |
|
Premature filing of a notice of cross-appeal is curable; unproven special damages and statutory 7% interest upheld.
Civil procedure – competence of cross-appeal – premature filing of notice of cross-appeal not fatal if no miscarriage of justice; Evidence – special damages – must be specifically proved with accounts/receipts; Interest – statutory rate (7%) reasonable under Civil Procedure Act; appellate review – appellate court will not disturb factual findings absent demonstrable error.
|
13 November 2007 |
|
Application to strike out notice of appeal dismissed because respondent’s request for certified copy complied with rule 83(1).
Civil procedure — Notice of appeal — Rule 82 strike-out for failure to take essential step; Rule 83(1) proviso — application for certified copy to Registrar suspends time; delay by Registry not attributable to appellant; inference of receipt requires proof.
|
12 November 2007 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal where refusal would cause irreparable harm and balance of convenience favors applicant.
* Civil procedure – stay of execution – factors: prima facie prospects of success, irreparable injury, balance of convenience; * Property dispute – possession and eviction – risk of irreparable harm where applicant resides on disputed land; * Interlocutory relief – maintaining status quo pending appeal.
|
6 November 2007 |
|
Stay of execution granted where parastatal applicant faced irreparable budgetary harm and appeal might otherwise be rendered nugatory.
Stay of execution — Rule 9(2) Court of Appeal Rules — discretion guided by likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience — parastatal applicant and respondent’s poor financial position — stay granted to avoid rendering appeal nugatory.
|
6 November 2007 |
|
An ex parte proof order may be interlocutory in form but conclusive in effect, so a notice of appeal should not be struck out.
civil procedure – interlocutory orders; ex parte proof order – interlocutory in form but potentially conclusive in effect; competence of appeal; application to strike out Notice of Appeal under Rule 82; premature strike-out where related High Court applications pending
|
2 November 2007 |
| October 2007 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed as time-barred for failure to comply with Court of Appeal Rules' filing and service requirements.
Court of Appeal — Time limits for instituting appeals — Rule 83(1) and proviso — Requirement under rule 83(2) to apply for copy of proceedings within 30 days and to serve the application on the other party — Failure to copy/serve disqualifies reliance on proviso — Appeal rendered time-barred and incompetent.
|
31 October 2007 |
|
A sale purporting to be by a deceased person is void; purchaser gains no title and property restored to the estate.
Contract law – competence to contract – person deceased at time of transaction cannot contract; sale void ab initio. Fraudulent conveyance – purchaser’s duty to verify vendor’s title; no title passes under void contract. Remedies – restoration to estate administrator; purchaser not entitled to compensation.
|
29 October 2007 |
|
Voir dire omission did not vitiate conviction; totality of child testimony, PF3 and admission upheld conviction and life sentence.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Conviction on evidence of a child of tender years – effect of failure to conduct voir dire; Law of Evidence s.127(5) and s.127(7); admissibility and weight of PF3 medical report; failure to call witnesses and prejudice; sentencing under Penal Code s.131(3) (rape of girl below ten years mandates life imprisonment).
|
24 October 2007 |
|
Extension of time to appeal requires affidavit evidence of sufficient cause; political settlement is not a valid excuse.
Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – reasons for delay must be supported by affidavit evidence; submissions are not evidence; political or out‑of‑court settlement is not a valid excuse for delay; lack of leave to appear and defend under summary procedure undermines prospects of success; discretion to extend time must be exercised where sufficient cause shown.
|
24 October 2007 |
| September 2007 |
|
|
An application against a repealed statutory body is incompetent; proper substitution and specification are required.
Naming/respondent – proceedings against non‑existent statutory corporation – repeal of enabling Act (Ports Act No. 17/2004) – competence of proceedings; Succession in title – substitution of parties not by implication; De‑specification by GN No.151/2006 – effect on right to sue/appeal; struck out with costs.
|
26 September 2007 |
|
Alleged illegality from denial of hearing constitutes sufficient reason under Rule 8 to extend time despite delay.
* Civil procedure — extension of time under Rule 8 — sufficiency of reason — illegality and breach of natural justice (failure to be heard) constitute sufficient reason to extend time.
* Appellate procedure — requirement to show arguable appeal or reasonable explanation for delay is not absolute; court’s discretion is flexible and case-specific.
* Natural justice — denial of hearing vitiates proceedings and raises jurisdictional illegality.
|
26 September 2007 |
|
Denial of hearing (illegality) constitutes sufficient reason to extend time to appeal despite inordinate delay.
Court of Appeal — Rule 8 (extension of time) — "sufficient reason" — illegality/natural justice — condemned unheard — extension granted despite delay.
|
26 September 2007 |
|
Documents filed by an advocate without a practising certificate are void; appeal struck out for incompetence.
Advocates – practising certificate – practising without certificate renders acts/documents of no legal effect; Appellate procedure – Article 83(4) scope limited to cases under Article 83(1)(a)/(b) so leave may be required; Civil procedure – compliance with Rule 76(1) on lodging notices of appeal.
|
20 September 2007 |
|
Documents filed by an unqualified advocate are void, and leave was required for this election-related appeal.
* Advocates Act – practising certificate – practising without a current certificate renders acts and filed documents of the unqualified advocate of no legal effect. * Constitutional/Election law – Article 83(4) – right of appeal limited to matters falling under Article 83(1)(a) and (b); other election-petition decisions require leave under Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.5(1)(c). * Civil procedure – formal defects in lodging notices may be excused, but substantive defects (invalidly filed documents) are fatal.
|
20 September 2007 |
|
An order dismissing an appeal from the Industrial Court is not a "decree" under the Civil Procedure Code; preliminary objection dismissed.
Civil procedure – meaning of "decree" under section 3 of the Civil Procedure Code – distinction between decree and order – proceedings from Industrial Court (trade dispute by reference) do not constitute a "suit" for purposes of a decree – Orders 20 R.7 and 39 R.35(1) inapplicable – preliminary objection dismissed.
|
20 September 2007 |
|
A Registrar‑signed decree under Order XLIII r.1(d) can be valid and not render an appeal incompetent; appeal may proceed.
Civil procedure — validity of decrees — Order XX r.7 vs Order XLIII r.1(d) — Registrar/Deputy Registrar empowered to sign decrees — competence of appeals accompanied by registrar‑signed decrees — fairness to parties.
|
20 September 2007 |
|
Summary dismissal valid; unsworn child evidence required corroboration which medical and confessional evidence provided.
* Criminal procedure – summary rejection of appeals – section 364(1)(c) CPA – powers to dismiss frivolous or unsubstantiated appeals.
* Evidence – child witness – section 127(2) Evidence Act – failure to conduct voir dire reduces evidence to unsworn testimony requiring corroboration.
* Corroboration – medical evidence (perforated hymen, bruising) and admission/confession evidence can sufficiently corroborate unsworn child evidence.
* Appeal review – minor contradictions in testimony not necessarily fatal to prosecution case.
* Trial conduct – judicial remarks implying consent by a child are improper and unsupported by law or evidence.
|
19 September 2007 |
|
Conviction based on dock visual identification without an identification parade was unsafe for the applicant.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual and dock identification – Necessity for caution where identification is by strangers, in night-time/terrifying circumstances, with long lapse before identification and no identification parade. * Evidence – Identification parade – Importance of conducting a parade promptly after arrest to bolster reliability. * Confessions/caution statements – Involuntariness and exclusion can materially affect prosecution case.
|
18 September 2007 |
|
Conviction based on dock identification without an identification parade after a night-time robbery is unsafe and was quashed.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Dock identification – Identification parade necessary where witnesses are strangers and offence occurred at night/under terrifying circumstances; caution on value of dock identification – Cautioned statements – voluntariness and exclusion – Safety of conviction where identification is principal evidence.
|
18 September 2007 |
|
An application against a repealed statutory body is incompetent; a successor must be properly substituted before the court.
Administrative law; procedural competence – proceedings against a repealed statutory body; substitution of successor in title; Ports Act 2004 s.75 and s.75(6) – Minister’s certificate as conclusive evidence; effect of de-specification (GN. No.151/2006) on ability to sue a statutory corporation.
|
18 September 2007 |
|
Whether a decree signed by a Registrar under Order XLIII r.1(d) is valid for an appeal; appeal allowed to proceed.
Civil procedure – Signing of decrees – Order XX r.7 vis-à-vis Order XLIII r.1(d) – Registrar/Deputy Registrar authorised to sign decrees – Validity of decree signed by Registrar – Competency of appeal – striking out vs allowing appeal to proceed.
|
15 September 2007 |
|
A single Judge properly dismissed an application for want of prosecution where incompetence was not raised.
* Court of Appeal Rules — rule 44: requirement to start certain applications in the High Court before the Court of Appeal. * Court of Appeal Rules — rule 56(3): single Judge’s power to dismiss applications for want of prosecution. * Incompetence vs. want of prosecution — preliminary objection must be raised before the single Judge. * Restoration of dismissed applications — no specific rule; rule 3(2) may be invoked in fit cases.
|
14 September 2007 |
|
Extension of time granted where delay caused by defective certificate of delay and respondent's strike-out application; applicants acted diligently.
Court Rules (1979) – Rule 8 – extension of time; defective certificate of delay; diligence in prosecuting appeal; strike-out application as pre-emptive obstacle; no provision for supplementary certificate; exercise of court's discretion; precedent: Kermal; Tanzania Revenue Authority v Tango Transport.
|
12 September 2007 |
|
Applicant’s arrest and unproven allegation about counsel are insufficient to obtain an extension of time to appeal.
Extension of time – sufficient cause for delay – arrest occurring years after impugned decision and unproven allegations about counsel insufficient; Reference – Court will not admit fresh facts or submissions not presented to the single judge.
|
12 September 2007 |
|
Failure to conduct requisite voire dire and procedural defects in PF3 evidence rendered conviction unsafe; corporal punishment unlawful.
Criminal law – Evidence of children of tender age – Section 127(2) Evidence Act – voire dire mandatory and must be recorded; unsworn child evidence requires corroboration; corroboration cannot come from another witness whose evidence itself needs corroboration; PF3 medical report cannot identify assailant absent procedural compliance with Section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act; corporal punishment not permissible under Section 131(3) Penal Code.
|
11 September 2007 |
|
Amendment limiting pension payments does not violate Article 23’s protection of wages ('ujira') and is not retrospective.
Constitutional law – Article 23 (ujira) vs pension; statutory interpretation – clear and unambiguous language; presumption against retrospectivity; pensions law – Section 26(2)(b) not violating right to just remuneration.
|
11 September 2007 |
|
Whether Order XXI objection proceedings determine possession (not title); Court quashed misdirected ruling and set aside subsequent judgment.
Civil procedure — Execution and attachment — Order XXI r.57(1), r.59 CPC — Objection proceedings investigate possession not title; appellate revisional power (s.4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act) to call records and quash erroneous rulings; failure to release attached property; liability of court-brokers and proper parties in execution proceedings.
|
6 September 2007 |
| August 2007 |
|
|
A receiver of a specified public corporation lacks locus standi in an appeal if it was not a party at trial; joinder refused.
Public Corporations Act; specification of public corporation — PSRC as official receiver; Bankruptcy Act s.9(1) — protection of specified public corporation and requirement of leave for creditors; locus standi — a receiver/PSRC not entitled to be joined in appeal if not party at trial; joinder and amendment of record at appellate stage.
|
29 August 2007 |
|
Extension of time to file review denied where delay unexplained and reliance on Chief Justice's letter was insufficient.
Extension of time – application for review – 60-day rule – reasons for delay – correspondence to Chief Justice does not constitute review application – extra-judicial remedies do not stop limitation period – alleged illegality not previously raised cannot justify enlargement of time.
|
23 August 2007 |
|
A subsequent suit directly and substantially the same as a prior suit must be stayed, not dismissed, under section 8.
Civil Procedure – res sub judice – section 8 Civil Procedure Code – court shall not proceed with trial where matter directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit – statutory consequence is stay of subsequent suit, not dismissal – party invoking section 8 should produce plaint/particulars of earlier suit for comparison.
|
17 August 2007 |
|
Applicant permitted to substitute respondent's name; adding new documents requires Rule 92, not Rule 104.
Civil procedure — Amendment of record of appeal — Rule 104 Court of Appeal Rules 1979 — Substitution of respondent's name by operation of law (Ports Act 2004) — Removal of respondent where not a specified corporation — Addition of documents to record requires supplementary record under Rule 92 — Inherent powers under Rule 3 not to be used where express provision exists.
|
17 August 2007 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal only upon deposit of the full decretal amount into court.
Stay of execution — Rule 9(2)(b) Court of Appeal Rules — applicant must show sufficient cause; allegation of strong chances of success insufficient; must specify particulars of substantial and irreparable loss — court may condition stay on deposit/security of decretal amount.
|
9 August 2007 |