|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2011 |
|
|
A treaty-established bank's charter-based immunity covers bank balances; garnishee/order against the appellant was wrongly made.
International organisations – treaty/charter-based immunity – Articles 44 & 45 (as incorporated domestically) – scope of "assets" includes bank balances – restrictive state-immunity doctrine not applicable to IOs – execution/garnishee proceedings incompatible with treaty immunity.
|
28 December 2011 |
|
An international bank enjoyed absolute immunity from legal process and bank balances were immune from attachment.
International organisations — immunity from legal process under constitutive charter; scope of "assets" — includes bank monies and is immune from execution; distinguish immunity of international organisations from state sovereign immunity; res judicata and change of law (Amending Act 2005) — prior rulings do not bar newly conferred immunities.
|
22 December 2011 |
| November 2011 |
|
|
The applicant's civil application was marked withdrawn by the Court following a written notice under Rule 58(1).
* Civil procedure – Withdrawal of application – Effect of written Notice of withdrawal lodged by counsel – Application marked withdrawn under Rule 58(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
|
21 November 2011 |
|
Whether a consent decree contingent on future acts was a valid, executable decree and whether contempt enforcement against non‑parties was lawful.
Civil Procedure – validity of consent decree – decree must conclusively determine rights; Contract law – certainty of terms – contingent settlement void for uncertainty; Execution and contempt – proper procedure (s.42(c) CPC) vs misuse of s.95 CPC; Enforcement against third parties – improper where they are not parties or judgment debtors; Right to fair hearing – requirement of adducing evidence (counter‑affidavit) before conviction; Legality of sanctions – imprisonment and fines must conform to statutory limits.
|
18 November 2011 |
|
The applicant must comply with Rule 106(1) of the 2009 Rules and file written submissions within sixty days.
Court of Appeal procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 106(1) (mandatory filing of written submissions) – Transitional provision Rule 130(a) – applicability of new rules to pending proceedings – discretion to dispense when impracticable.
|
17 November 2011 |
|
An application to strike out more than one notice of appeal in a single motion is incompetent under Rule 89(2).
Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 89(2) – application to strike out a notice of appeal must relate to "a notice of appeal"; consolidated application against multiple notices improper; Interpretation of Laws Act s.8(c) inapplicable to override specific procedural wording; adherence to court rules required.
|
16 November 2011 |
|
Appeal allowed: trial court relied on an uncertified sketch and uncorroborated testimony to find negligence.
* Civil liability — motor-vehicle collision — proof of negligence — standard: balance of probabilities; * Evidence — admissibility of public documents — requirement for certified copies (ss.85, 86 Evidence Act) and effect of non-compliance; * Hearsay and corroboration — limits of second-hand police testimony; * Secondary evidence — proof of lost ticket and passenger status; * Proof of witness reliability — when expert medical evidence is required for loss of consciousness/memory issues.
|
1 November 2011 |
| October 2011 |
|
|
A petitioner must first exhaust available statutory appeal remedies before invoking the Basic Rights Act to challenge s.35.
Constitutional procedure — Basic Rights Act s.8(2): High Court may decline petition if adequate statutory remedies exist; Employment law — s.35 Employment and Labour Relations Act: scope of unfair termination protection; Labour Institutions Act s.57: appeal on point of law to Court of Appeal — requirement to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking constitutional petition.
|
27 October 2011 |
|
Appellant failed to prove title to an international draft; bank’s referral and delay were not negligent.
Banking law – collecting banker’s duty of care – reasonable diligence vs right to investigate suspicious international drafts; Evidence – burden of proof on plaintiff to establish genuineness and title to a draft; Allegation of forgery requires strict proof but burden shifts only after prima facie case; Weight and admissibility of documentary evidence and competence of witness to produce documents.
|
25 October 2011 |
|
Appellate court allowed appeal after excluding uncertified sketch-plan and finding plaintiff’s evidence insufficient to prove negligence.
Evidence — Admissibility of uncertified public documents — sections 85(1), 86 and section 83(1)(iii) of the Evidence Act; Hearsay — weight of officer’s testimony based on inadmissible sketch-plan; Civil standard of proof — negligence must be established on balance of probabilities; Medical evidence — need for expert evidence where loss of consciousness/memory affects witness reliability; Passenger testimony — requirement for corroboration or documentary proof (ticket/medical records).
|
21 October 2011 |
|
Conviction based on unsafe visual identification and a materially non-compliant identification parade is quashed.
Criminal law — visual identification — requirements for correct and unmistaken identification; Identification parade — compliance with Police General Order No. 232 (advocate/friend attendance, similar appearance of parade members, delay, non-involvement of investigating officer); Assessors — duty of trial court to consider and give reasons when disagreeing with assessor opinions; Conviction unsafe where identity not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
19 October 2011 |
|
|
19 October 2011 |
|
Court dismissed both appeals, holding identification reliable and alleged procedural irregularities non-prejudicial.
* Criminal law – Unnatural offence – discrepancies in witness testimony – materiality and credibility assessment.
* Criminal procedure – Effect of prosecution by subordinate police rank and failure to hold preliminary hearing – non-fatal irregularities.
* Evidence – Visual identification at night – familiarity of witnesses and adequacy of lighting as safeguards against mistaken identity.
* Appellate review – deference to concurrent findings of fact absent misdirection or miscarriage of justice.
|
5 October 2011 |
|
|
4 October 2011 |
| September 2011 |
|
|
Misgranting letters of administration instead of probate is a substantive error not curable as a clerical slip; High Court order quashed.
* Probate law – Distinction between probate and letters of administration – substantive differences in rights, procedures and effects under the Probate and Administration of Estates Act.
* Civil procedure – Section 96 Civil Procedure Code – limits: substantive errors of jurisdiction or character of orders not curable as mere clerical slips.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Exercising revisional jurisdiction under s.4(3) to quash a High Court order and remit matter for proper processing under statutory scheme.
|
23 September 2011 |
|
A High Court’s grant of Letters of Administration instead of probate is a substantive error not curable as a clerical slip.
* Probate law – Distinction between probate and Letters of Administration – Probate validates a will and vests rights in an executor; Letters of Administration operate in intestacy.
* Civil procedure – Clerical/arithmetic error (s.96 Civil Procedure Code) – Substitution of Letters of Administration for probate is substantive, not clerical.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Court of Appeal revisional powers (s.4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act) – Quash and remit for proper processing under Probate and Administration of Estates Act.
|
15 September 2011 |
|
Leave to appear as amicus curiae cannot be granted where no prior pending proceedings exist.
Amicus curiae — must relate to existing pending proceedings; cannot be an initiator of the action; distinct from intervener; application for amicus in absence of pending matter is incompetent; omnibus applications dependent on defective foundational relief can be struck out with costs.
|
15 September 2011 |
|
Rule 42(1) cannot be used to amend a judgment’s substance or to quash redundancy and order reinstatement.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 42(1) – correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes – scope limited to errors not affecting judgment’s substance.
* Civil procedure – Rule 42(2) – correction of orders not corresponding with judgment.
* Labour law – redundancy remedies – reinstatement not appropriate where applicants lacked locus standi before adjudicative bodies.
* Procedure – preliminary objection to corrective motion – permissible where motion seeks substantive review.
|
12 September 2011 |
|
A notice of appeal that fails to specify the exact date of the decision appealed from renders the criminal appeal incompetent.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Rule 68(1) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – requirement to specify exact date of decision appealed from; defective notice bearing dates not relating to the impugned ruling is fatal; notice of appeal institutes criminal appeal – absence of application to amend renders appeal incompetent and subject to striking out.
|
8 September 2011 |
|
Review dismissed: alleged errors were not manifest and complaints mostly raised appealable legal issues; applicant had been heard.
* Civil procedure — Review — Scope of review under Rule 66 and Chandrakant: manifest error on face of record, not mere error of law. * Natural justice — Opportunity to be heard — when denial of hearing grounds review. * Res judicata and limitation — disputes of interpretation are appealable, not reviewable. * Court practice — Deemed withdrawal of notice of appeal normally formalised by court order; court may cite authorities not argued by parties.
|
6 September 2011 |
|
Receiver-manager acting under a Debenture was the company’s agent and not personally liable for purchases absent proved fraud.
Company law – Receivership – Debenture clauses making receiver-manager an agent and providing company alone liable for his acts – Receiver’s authority to trade on company’s behalf – Personal liability for fraudulent trading – Standard and proof of fraud in civil proceedings.
|
1 September 2011 |
| August 2011 |
|
|
Whether the applicant was denied a hearing or a manifest error justified review of the Court of Appeal judgment.
* Review — stringent test; manifest error on face of record; miscarriage of justice (Chandrakant; Rule 66).
* Natural justice — opportunity to be heard; denial of hearing not established.
* Procedure — reliance by Court on authorities not cited by parties permissible; parties ideally should be allowed to address such authorities.
* Res judicata and limitation — disputed interpretations are appeal issues, not review grounds.
* Notice of appeal — deemed withdrawal requires Court order; notice remains extant until ordered otherwise.
|
25 August 2011 |
|
Failure to join a necessary party with proprietary interest vitiated judgment on admission and required quashing and rehearing.
Civil procedure — Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC — Necessary parties — Court’s power to add parties against plaintiff’s will where orders would affect proprietary rights — Failure to join necessary party and enter judgment constitutes material irregularity — Judgment on admission set aside.
|
25 August 2011 |
|
Failure to join the applicant as a necessary party before entering judgment on admission rendered the High Court proceedings null and void.
• Civil procedure — necessary party — Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC — court’s power and duty to add parties suo motu
• Natural justice — right to be heard — omission to join/hear affected party vitiates proceedings
• Judgment on admission — may be null where necessary party excluded
• Revisional jurisdiction — quashing of proceedings and remedial orders (return of title, addition of parties, remittal)
|
25 August 2011 |
|
Granting letters of administration instead of probate is a substantive error, not a clerical slip, and must be remedied by proper probate proceedings.
* Probate law — distinction between probate and letters of administration — effect and procedure under the Probate and Administration of Estates Act; * Civil procedure — section 96 Civil Procedure Code does not cure substantive mistake of granting administration in place of probate; * Appellate jurisdiction — Court’s revisional power to quash substantive mis-grant and remit for proper probate processing.
|
15 August 2011 |
|
Failure to file mandatory written submissions under Rule 106(1) warrants dismissal; Rule 106(13) cannot cure prior non‑compliance.
Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 106(1) mandatory filing of written submissions; Rule 106(13) enlargement of time; Rule 106(19) exceptional waiver in interests of justice; non‑compliance and preliminary objection; dismissal with costs.
|
12 August 2011 |
|
Sentence unlawful where no conviction recorded and defective charge plus unreliable identification caused failure of justice.
Criminal procedure — requirement to record conviction before sentencing (s.235 CPA); defective charge — wrong statutory provision for armed robbery; material discrepancies in particulars of offence (date and complainant's presence); visual identification — Waziri Amani factors and risk of mistaken identity; s.388 CPA inapplicable where defects occasion failure of justice.
|
10 August 2011 |
|
Unreliable visual identification and statutory defects in a confessional statement led to quashing of convictions and sentences.
Criminal law – Visual identification evidence – reliability and need for watertight conditions; failure to name a known suspect at earliest opportunity renders identification suspect. Criminal procedure – Cautioned/confessional statements – mandatory compliance with ss.50, 51, 57 Criminal Procedure Act; non-compliance renders statements inadmissible. Criminal procedure – Conviction must be entered before sentence; sentencing without conviction invalid. Appeal – Interference with concurrent findings justified where findings are perverse or based on misapprehension of evidence.
|
5 August 2011 |
| July 2011 |
|
|
Court held that mis-citation, uncertified proceedings and fee defects did not render revision application incompetent; objections overruled.
* Civil procedure — revision — competence of application where a prior notice of appeal was filed and subsequently withdrawn. * Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 48(1) — requirement to cite specific rule; mis-citation curable; no implicit requirement to cite statutory enabling provision. * Evidence/proceedings — uncertified or unsigned High Court proceedings may be cured and are not automatically fatal if no complaint as to authenticity. * Court fees — alleged non-payment is a question of fact and does not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
|
29 July 2011 |
|
Receiver-manager acting under a debenture is not personally liable where fraud is not proved; company liable.
Receiver-manager under debenture; agency and liability of principal; fraud in civil proceedings – standard of proof; fraudulent trading; effect of failure to publish receivership/filing abstracts.
|
25 July 2011 |
|
Leave granted to amend the revision application by filing additional documents to complete the record within 14 days.
Court of Appeal – Application for leave to amend by supplying additional documents; Rules 50(1) and 4(2)(a),(b) Court of Appeal Rules 2009; admission of copies to facilitate Justices’ reading and decision whether to call for original High Court record; filing within 14 days; no order as to costs.
|
22 July 2011 |
|
A dismissed execution objection under Order 21 Rule 62 must be challenged by suit, not by revision; revision struck out with costs.
* Civil Procedure – execution objections under Order 21 Rule 62 – effect of dismissal – remedy is a suit, not revision.
* Civil Procedure – revisional jurisdiction – limits where Order 21 dismissal has been properly made.
* Procedural law – dismissal for want of prosecution – opportunity to be heard and counsel’s conduct.
|
21 July 2011 |
|
Dismissal of an objection under Order 21 Rule 62 is not revisable; the remedy is to institute a suit; revision struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – Execution – Objection to execution under Order 21 Rule 62 – Dismissal for want of prosecution – Whether such dismissal is revisable or the proper remedy is a suit – Revisional jurisdiction and precedent.
|
21 July 2011 |
|
|
21 July 2011 |
|
A single judge may employ Rule 4 and inherent powers to grant interim stay pending revision to prevent injustice.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Section 4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – power to call for and examine High Court records; * Court Rules – Rule 4(1) & (2)(b) – interim orders to meet ends of justice; * Inherent judicial powers – ancillary orders to prevent injustice; * Stay of execution – distinction between interim protective orders and formal stay applications under Rule 60/Rule 11(2)(b); * Natural justice – failure to hear before interim order and absence of prejudice.
|
20 July 2011 |
|
A single Judge may use inherent and Rule 4 powers to grant interim stays pending revision to prevent injustice.
* Appellate procedure – interim orders – extent of a single Judge's jurisdiction to stay execution pending revision; inherent powers of the Court.
* Court Rules – Rule 4(1) & (2)(b) invoked to meet ends of justice; Rule 60/Rule 11 not engaged where Court acts on its own motion.
* Inherent jurisdiction – supervisory power to call for records and prevent miscarriage of justice.
* Natural justice – interim unopposed orders may be justified where temporary and non-prejudicial; misstatements by counsel do not automatically vitiate interim measures.
|
20 July 2011 |
|
Suo motu revision quashes High Court ex parte decree where proof of service is absent and necessary party was not joined.
Appellate jurisdiction – Section 4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – suo motu revisional powers; Civil procedure – proof of service and ex parte proceedings – absence of proof vitiates ex parte order; Joinder – non-joinder of a necessary government party in interrelated suits; Relief – quashing proceedings, setting aside ex parte judgment, rehearing de novo before another judge.
|
20 July 2011 |
|
Ex parte High Court judgment set aside for lack of proof of service and other procedural irregularities.
* Appellate jurisdiction – suo motu revisional power under s.4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – power to call and examine High Court records.
* Civil procedure – ex parte proceedings – requirement of proof of service; absence of proof vitiates ex parte leave, judgment and decree.
* Civil procedure – dismissal for want of prosecution – need for substantive consideration where complex interlocutory steps exist.
* Evidence/record management – missing admitted exhibits undermining judgment.
* Joinder – non-joinder of a principal party (government) affecting fair adjudication of interrelated suits.
|
20 July 2011 |
|
Sentence imposed without recorded conviction and defective charge sheet warranted setting aside conviction and release.
Criminal procedure — sentencing without prior conviction (s.235 CPA); defective charge sheet — wrong statutory citation; material discrepancies in particulars and date; visual identification standards (Waziri Amani) — watertight identification required; failure of justice and limits of s.388 CPA.
|
19 July 2011 |
|
Applicant’s documented illness during the filing period constituted good cause for extension to file written submissions.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Rule 10 and Rule 106(1) & (19) Court of Appeal Rules — computation of the sixty-day period from lodging the record — illness and medical treatment may constitute good cause — discretion to waive strict filing timelines in interest of substantive justice.
|
19 July 2011 |
|
Court dismissed preliminary objection, holding Rule 106(9) discretionary and objection not a pure point of law.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – must raise a pure point of law (Mukisa test); Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Rule 106(1) and (9) – filing written submissions; Rule 106(9) discretionary ("may") – read with Interpretation of Laws Act s.53(1); objection relying on affidavits/facts not suitable for preliminary determination; dismissal with costs.
|
13 July 2011 |
|
Application struck out because the supporting affidavit’s jurat failed to state where the oath was taken.
Affidavit — jurat must state place and date (s.8 Cap 12 R.E.2002) — non‑compliance renders affidavit incurably defective — Notice of Motion must be supported by valid affidavit (Rule 48(1) Court of Appeal Rules) — Attorney General may seek leave to act as friend of the Court — correct provision for revisionary jurisdiction s.4(3) AJA.
|
12 July 2011 |
|
An affidavit whose jurat omits the place is incurably defective; the motion supported thereby is incompetent and struck out.
Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act s.8 – jurat must state place and date; affidavit omitting place is incurably defective – Notice of Motion must be supported by valid affidavit (Court of Appeal Rules r.48(1)) – application without valid affidavit is incompetent and struck out; Attorney General may seek to act as amicus curiae but must obtain leave and follow procedure; proper provision for revisionary matters is s.4(3) AJA, not s.4(2).
|
12 July 2011 |
|
Registrar certification of a judgment did not render the appeal incompetent where the judgment was signed by all tribunal members.
* Tax Appeals Tribunal – Rule 21 GN 56/2001 – signing and certification of tribunal judgments – whether Registrar’s certification renders appeal incompetent. * Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 2 – duty to do substantive justice and avoid technicalities. * Constitution – Article 107A(2)(e) – dispense justice without undue technical provisions. * Distinguishing precedent where judgment was not signed by full bench.
|
8 July 2011 |
|
Chief Justice may open suo motu revision on an applicant's complaint; such revision is not time‑barred.
* Civil procedure – Revision suo motu – Chief Justice’s wide discretion to open revision on information or complaint – complaint letters by counsel permissible basis to initiate revision.
* Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 65) – party‑initiated procedure distinguished from suo motu powers – Rule 65(4) time limit not applicable to suo motu revision.
* Interlocutory orders – objection that order is interlocutory not a pure point of law; requires factual inquiry (Mukisa principle).
* Distinction between review and revision – remedies are different; review jurisprudence not directly applicable to revision time limits.
|
7 July 2011 |
|
|
4 July 2011 |
|
Registrar’s certification of a tribunal judgment does not render an appeal incompetent where all tribunal members signed the judgment.
* Tax appeals – Certification of Tribunal judgments – Rule 21 GN 56 of 2001 – whether Registrar’s certification invalidates appeal. * Civil procedure – substantive justice – Rule 2 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 and Article 107A(2)(e) Constitution – curing procedural/technical defects. * Distinguishing precedent where tribunal was not properly constituted.
|
4 July 2011 |
| June 2011 |
|
|
Detinue is a continuing wrong under section 7, so parts of a mixed claim may survive limitation and merit trial.
Limitation of actions — Law of Limitation Act — section 7 (continuing wrong) — detinue as a continuing tort — different limitation periods for different causes of action — accrual on judgment (s.6(c)) — judgment on admission (Order XII r.4) — when entire suit cannot be struck out if only some claims are time‑barred.
|
13 June 2011 |
|
Conviction overturned where night-time visual identification was unreliable and relied on uncorroborated confession of an acquitted co-accused.
* Evidence – Visual identification – Night-time identification requires watertight description and caution; unreliable visual ID cannot sustain conviction. * Evidence – Confession by co-accused – Under Evidence Act s.33(2) conviction cannot rest solely on an acquitted co-accused’s statement; corroboration required. * Criminal procedure – Alleged omission of preliminary hearing under s.192 raised but conviction overturned on evidential grounds.
|
9 June 2011 |
|
Applicant failed to show recognized grounds for review; application dismissed with costs.
Review — limited to manifest error on the face of the record, denial of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, or fraud/perjury; allegations of delay, arrest, advocate’s ill-health or ignorance of procedure do not alone justify review or extension of time.
|
9 June 2011 |