|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2012 |
|
|
Failure by the appellant to include mandatory recorded proceedings rendered the appeal incompetent and it was struck out.
Appeal — Record of appeal — Mandatory inclusion of pleadings and recorded proceedings under Rule 96(1)(c) and (d); omission of recorded proceedings fatal to competence; transcripts of judge’s notes not a substitute; Rule 96(3) exclusion requires leave; Rule 96(6) allows remedial inclusion within 14 days.
|
19 December 2012 |
|
Miscitation of provisions did not invalidate judicial review leave; defective representative Notice of Appeal must be amended.
Judicial review — leave requirement — Crown Office Rules 1906 — Judicature and Application of Laws Act s2(3) — Law Reform Act procedure — wrong citation not fatal; Court of Appeal procedure — representative Notice of Appeal defective — curable under Rule 111, Court of Appeal Rules 2009.
|
17 December 2012 |
|
Reported
An administration petition properly presented imposes a statutory moratorium freezing winding-up proceedings unless leave is granted.
Companies law – administration orders vs winding up – distinction between rescue and liquidation regimes; moratorium under administration (s.249(1)(a),(c)) – effect of administration petition on pending winding-up proceedings; savings clause (s.486) – preserves winding-up provisions only and does not bar application of administration provisions to companies wound up before Act; procedural irregularity – continuation of proceedings and winding-up order after administration petition – nullity.
|
17 December 2012 |
|
Circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; convictions quashed and appellants released.
Criminal law – Murder; reliance on circumstantial evidence – requirement that incriminatory circumstances be cogent and form an unbroken chain excluding other reasonable hypotheses – unnecessary identification parade where witnesses knew accused – failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – quash convictions and order release.
|
12 December 2012 |
|
Incorrect statutory citation did not vitiate judicial review where no statutory leave requirement exists; Notice of Appeal must be amended to name all appellants.
* Judicial review – procedural requirements – whether prior leave is statutorily required in Tanzania – Crown Office Rules 1906 applicable by s.2(3) JALA when no rules made under s.18(1) Law Reform Act.* Citation of wrong provisions – generally may render application incompetent, but where no statutory leave requirement exists objection is misconceived.* Civil procedure – Appeals – Notice of Appeal – proper identification of appellants – amendment under Rule 111 Court of Appeal Rules 2009.
|
12 December 2012 |
|
Circumstantial evidence that fails to form a cogent chain cannot sustain murder convictions; identification parades add no value when accused are known.
* Criminal law – identification parade – unnecessary and of no evidential value where accused were known to prosecution witnesses. * Criminal law – circumstantial evidence – must be cogent, form an unbroken chain and exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence. * Burden of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reasonable doubt requires benefit to accused.
|
6 December 2012 |
| November 2012 |
|
|
Convictions quashed where circumstantial evidence failed to exclude other reasonable hypotheses and identification parade was unnecessary.
* Criminal law — Identification parade: unnecessary and without evidential weight where accused are known to witnesses.
* Evidence — Circumstantial evidence must be cogent and form an unbroken chain excluding other reasonable hypotheses.
* Burden of proof — Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to produce ballistic/exhibits can weaken circumstantial linkage.
|
29 November 2012 |
|
Respondent employer held liable for negligent blasting causing applicant's dependent's death; damages awarded and insurance excluded.
Employer negligence – failure to verify all employees clear before blasting; Mining safety procedures – tagging and logbook checks; Burden and production of documents – failure to produce logbook and investigation reports weakens defence; Hearsay/newspaper material – contextual weight in closed operations; Fatal accidents – damages assessed under Law Reform (Fatal Accidents) Act s.4(2); Insurance payments excluded from assessment under s.7 CAP 310.
|
23 November 2012 |
|
Appellant's excavation harmed respondent but special damages were not strictly proved; Court reduced award to Tshs.500,000,000 with interest.
* Mining and land disputes – designation of quarry sites – evidentiary burden to prove allocation by Ministry of Works.
* Mining law – validity of mineral rights – procedural/pleading limitations on challenging licence validity on appeal.
* Mining Act s.95 – ministerial consent – applicability requires evidence of land dedicated for non‑mining public purposes or proximity to government works.
* Corporate law – separate legal personality – no lifting of corporate veil without justification.
* Evidence – admissibility and weight of expert valuation – registration of surveyor suffices unless disqualification proved.
* Damages – special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved (time, quantity, market price).
|
7 November 2012 |
| October 2012 |
|
|
An application for stay must be filed within 60 days of the notice of appeal; a late application is time-barred.
Court of Appeal Rules – stay of execution – limitation period – application for stay must be filed within 60 days from filing the notice of appeal (Rule 11(2)(c) read with Rule 90(1)) – time runs from notice of appeal – failure to obtain copies does not extend the period; party must seek extension – late application struck out with costs.
|
25 October 2012 |
|
Court upheld rape conviction despite PF3 irregularity, finding complainant’s unsworn testimony and contextual statements proved penetration.
Criminal law - sexual offences - admissibility of PF3 and s.240(3) CPA compliance; evidence of penetration and interpretation of euphemistic language; treatment of juvenile witness evidence (oath vs unsworn) and need for corroboration; curability of procedural irregularities under s.388 CPA; appellate duty to give reasoned judgment.
|
25 October 2012 |
|
High Court exceeded supervisory powers under s.44(1) MCA by revising subordinate court; Court of Appeal quashed and remitted record.
* Criminal procedure – committal proceedings – Proper forum to determine accused’s age prior to committal under Law of the Child Act – whether High Court or subordinate court.* Constitutional/Statutory interpretation – Magistrates' Courts Act s.44(1): supervisory powers to call records and give directions, not revisional powers to substitute findings.* Appellate Jurisdiction Act ss.4(2) & 4(3) – competence of revision applications and Court of Appeal’s power to intervene where illegality appears on the face of the record.* Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to cite correct provision and state grounds for relief (Rule 48(1)).
|
10 October 2012 |
|
Omission of security-for-costs proceedings from the record renders election appeals incompetent and warrants striking out.
Election law – section 111(3) National Elections Act – security for costs application – Court of Appeal Rules 2009, Rule 96(1)(k) and (3) – omission of vital documents from record of appeal – Rule 96(6) remedy – omission renders appeal incompetent – striking out – no costs where issue raised suo motu.
|
8 October 2012 |
|
Appeals struck out for omission of vital record concerning security for costs required by Elections Act and Court Rules.
* Election law – section 111(3) National Elections Act – mandatory application and determination of security for costs; * Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 96(1)(k) (vital documents) and Rule 96(6) (inclusion of omitted documents); * Appeal competence – omission of essential proceedings from record of appeal renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; * Sua sponte scrutiny – no order as to costs where defect raised by the Court.
|
8 October 2012 |
|
|
5 October 2012 |
|
High Court has supervisory, not revisional, powers under section 44(1) MCA; case remitted for committal proceedings.
* Criminal procedure – committal proceedings – proper forum to determine age of accused – limitations of High Court under section 44(1) MCA.
* Appellate jurisdiction – section 4(2) AJA – revisional power only in the course of appeal; improper where no appeal exists.
* Civil procedure – competence of application – consequences of wrong citation and failure to state grounds (Rule 48(1) Court of Appeal Rules).
* Remedy – Court of Appeal invoking section 4(3) AJA to correct illegality on the face of record and remit to subordinate court.
|
2 October 2012 |
|
Failure to serve the Record of Appeal as required is a fundamental breach; Rule 2 cannot cure non-compliance, appeal struck out.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules – mandatory service of Record of Appeal under Rule 97(1) – non-compliance renders appeal incompetent.
* Civil procedure – Rule 2 (substantive justice) – cannot be invoked to cure breach of mandatory procedural requirements.
* Constitutional principle – right to fair proceedings – service requirement linked to Article 13(6)(a).
|
2 October 2012 |
| September 2012 |
|
|
Late attempt to substitute cash for required bank guarantee denied for delay, lack of diligence and misuse of company account.
Civil procedure – stay of execution – conditional stay requiring bank guarantee – equity aids the vigilant – failure to comply with condition precedent and failure to seek extension under Rule 10 – separate legal personality of company – applicant’s delay and lack of transparency defeats equitable relief.
|
19 September 2012 |
|
Appeal dismissed: identification evidence and witnesses found reliable; conviction and sentence upheld.
Criminal law – identification evidence – requirements for reliable identification (Waziri Aman principles) – credibility of witnesses – sufficiency of prosecution evidence to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.
|
13 September 2012 |
|
The applicant's appeal was dismissed; remaining eyewitnesses proved defilement despite voir dire and PF3 irregularities.
Criminal law – Defilement of an idiot/rape – voir dire requirements for child witnesses (s127 Evidence Act) – failure to record questions and assessment renders child evidence inadmissible; Criminal Procedure Act s240(3) – mandatory formalities for tendering PF3; s289(1) notice requirement applies to High Court only; Evidence Act s143(1) – no prescribed number of witnesses; credibility of eyewitnesses as sufficient proof of penetration and force.
|
10 September 2012 |
|
High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant stay of execution after the applicant files a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution — Jurisdiction to grant stay after Notice of Appeal — Court of Appeal Rules 2009 r.11(2)(b),(c),(d) and r.3 — High Court powers prior to Notice of Appeal (Order XXXIX r.5 CPC) — effect of lodging Notice of Appeal.
|
6 September 2012 |
| August 2012 |
|
|
A judge may not set aside a fellow judge's final consent decree by application; the correct remedy is a fresh suit.
* Civil Procedure – Functus officio – finality of consent decrees – whether a judge may set aside a fellow judge's consent decree by application.
* Civil Procedure – Consent decrees – remedy for alleged fraud, duress or misrepresentation is by substantive suit, not motion.
* Civil Procedure – Inherent powers and constitutional mandate to achieve substantive justice do not permit overriding fundamental procedural rules.
* Appeal and Revision – when revision is the appropriate remedy and preliminary objections premised on appealability or prematurity.
|
27 August 2012 |
|
A final consent decree cannot be reopened by another judge via application; the proper remedy is substantive proceedings or revision.
Civil procedure - Consent decree - functus officio - setting aside consent decrees; Inherent jurisdiction (s.95 CPC) and its limits; Remedy for alleged fraud/duress in consent decrees — substantive suit required; Revision vs appeal; Article 107A and substantive justice not overriding procedural safeguards.
|
23 August 2012 |
|
A final consent decree cannot be reopened by another judge via application; it must be challenged by substantive proceedings.
Civil procedure – Consent (compromise) decrees – Functus officio – Whether a judge may set aside a final consent decree by application invoking inherent powers – Procedure to challenge consent decrees (fresh suit vs application) – Preliminary objections: requirement that they be pure points of law – Interaction of inherent powers and procedural rules (substantive justice).
|
23 August 2012 |
|
Review alleging judicial bias and misinterpretation of law dismissed as an improper appeal, not a proper review.
Court of Appeal — Review jurisdiction — Rule 66(1) Court of Appeal Rules — Limits of review: manifest error on face of record; denial of hearing; fraud — Alleged misinterpretation of statute and revision rules not ground for review — Error of law or arguable misdirection is matter for appeal, not review.
|
16 August 2012 |
| July 2012 |
|
|
Omission of court-framed issues and part of an exhibit made the record incomplete; appeal struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure – Record of appeal – Mandatory inclusion of proceedings and exhibits – Rule 96(1)(d) & (f) – Exclusion only by application under Rule 96(3).
* Court practice – Duty of court to frame and record issues (Order XIV r.1(5)) – parties may assist but cannot substitute the court.
* Substantive justice – Article 107A(2)(e)/Rule 2 does not justify disregarding mandatory procedural requirements.
|
23 July 2012 |
|
An appeal was struck out because mandatory documents and a complete exhibit were omitted from the record of appeal.
Civil procedure — Record of appeal — Mandatory inclusion of proceedings and exhibits under Rule 96(1)(d) & (f); exclusion requires application under Rule 96(3). Trial procedure — Court's duty to frame and record issues (Order XIV Rule 1(5)). Substantive justice (Art.107A(2)(e)) cannot justify breaching mandatory procedural rules.
|
23 July 2012 |
|
Conviction quashed where inconsistencies in police evidence created reasonable doubt as to appellants' guilt.
* Criminal law – Murder – circumstantial evidence and recent possession – sufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt. * Criminal procedure – cautioned statements – authenticity, recording formalities and admissibility. * Evidence – inconsistencies in police testimony and unsafe convictions. * Appeal – quashing conviction where material contradictions create reasonable doubt.
|
19 July 2012 |
|
Uncorroborated, contradictory child identification and a useless parade rendered the murder conviction unsafe; appeal allowed.
Criminal law – Murder – Reliance on evidence of children – Requirement of corroboration in practice under section 127 Evidence Act; competency of child witness and where finding may be inferred from judgment; identification parades ineffective where witnesses previously knew accused; conviction unsafe where child testimony is contradictory and uncorroborated.
|
16 July 2012 |
|
Failure of all tribunal members to certify the judgment renders the appellate record defective and the appeal incompetent.
* Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal – Rule 21 – requirement that decision copy be duly signed and certified by all members who heard the appeal – certification by only the Chairman invalidates the copy. * Record of appeal – defective judgment copy infects the record – appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out. * Procedural compliance – mandatory nature of tribunal certification requirements.
|
4 July 2012 |
| June 2012 |
|
|
Conviction unsafe where prosecution’s inconsistent evidence fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – murder – circumstantial evidence and recent possession – requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; admissibility and reliability of cautioned statements where recording irregularities and delayed recording; material inconsistencies in prosecution accounts render conviction unsafe.
|
19 June 2012 |
| May 2012 |
|
|
Court allowed review to correct an inadvertent misnaming of the respondent in an earlier appellate ruling.
Court review – manifest error on face of record – misnaming of party – curable irregularity – correction of party name under Rule 66.
|
3 May 2012 |
| April 2012 |
|
|
Court allowed review to correct a respondent misnomer, finding the naming error curable and non-fatal.
Civil procedure – Review under Rule 66 – manifest error on the face of the record – misnomer of respondent – curable irregularity – amendment of party’s name – reliance on authorities permitting correction.
|
23 April 2012 |
|
The applicant's review application of a prior appellate judgment was dismissed for lack of merit, with costs certified for two advocates.
Court of Appeal — Review application — Whether grounds disclosed sufficient merit to warrant review — Application dismissed as without merit; costs awarded and certified for two advocates.
|
22 April 2012 |
|
Failure to file written submissions within the prescribed time does not automatically warrant dismissal absent shown prejudice.
Court of Appeal procedure – written submissions – Rule 106(1) and Rule 106(19) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – failure to file written submissions – preliminary objection – dismissal only where non-compliance causes prejudice or miscarriage of justice.
|
20 April 2012 |
|
Failure to file written submissions under Rule 106 is not fatal absent prejudice; appeal ordered to proceed.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Non‑compliance with Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 Rule 106(1) and (9) – Failure to file written submissions – Whether such failure is fatal or warrants dismissal where no prejudice or miscarriage of justice occurs.
|
20 April 2012 |
|
Failure to file required written submissions is not automatically fatal; appeal may proceed if no miscarriage of justice is shown.
Court of Appeal procedure — filing of written submissions under Rule 106(1) — non‑compliance — discretion under Rule 106(6) — failure to file not automatically fatal absent miscarriage of justice or shown prejudice.
|
13 April 2012 |
| March 2012 |
|
|
Extension granted to apply for leave because striking out counterclaim under Order XXXVI raised arguable illegality.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – court may grant extension where alleged illegality of impugned order warrants examination. * Civil Procedure Code, Order XXXVI – arrest/attachment before judgment and rule 5 commitment to civil prison for non-compliance; no express power to strike out for failure to furnish security. * Appellate practice – where illegality is alleged the appellate court should, even if by extending time, ascertain and correct the matter.
|
23 March 2012 |
|
Applications by non‑parties to be joined were struck out for relying on inapplicable provisions instead of Rule 109(1).
Civil procedure – joinder of non‑parties – interested parties in appeal; Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 109(1) is the proper provision for joining interested persons; invocation of inapplicable provisions renders application incompetent; Rule 4 is residual and not a substitute where specific rule exists; preliminary objections on competence.
|
19 March 2012 |
|
Applications to join as interested parties struck out for relying on inapplicable provisions instead of Rule 109(1).
Joinder of interested parties in appeals; Court of Appeal Rule 109(1) governs service and joinder of non-parties; applications brought under inapplicable provisions are incompetent and liable to be struck out; Rule 4 is residual and may be invoked only where no specific provision applies.
|
19 March 2012 |
|
Failure to annex the decree and to exhaust High Court remedies rendered the stay application incompetent; preliminary objections dismissed.
Court of Appeal — stay of execution — Rule 11(2)(b) requires annexation of the decree/order sought to be stayed — preliminary objections must raise pure points of law (Mukisa Biscuit) — factual disputes not suitable as preliminary objections — requirement to exhaust High Court/executing court remedies before invoking Court of Appeal.
|
13 March 2012 |
|
Court struck out respondent's long-dormant notice of appeal for want of prosecution; procedural defect cured under Rule 2.
Civil procedure — Strike out notice of appeal for want of prosecution — Rule 89(2) Court of Appeal Rules; Notice of Motion formality — Rule 48(1) and Form A; curative power — Rule 2; ex parte hearing — Rule 63(2); employment matter — no costs ordered.
|
8 March 2012 |
|
Stay applications must annex the decree and exhaust High Court remedies; factual preliminary objections are improper.
* Civil procedure – stay of execution – Court of Appeal Rules 2009, Rule 11(2)(b) – requirement to annex copy of decree/order sought to be stayed; * Preliminary objections – distinction between pure questions of law and questions of fact (Mukisa) – factual issues not appropriate as preliminary objections; * Service of notice of appeal – Rule 84(1) – factual proof required; * Limitation – time for filing stay applications; * Exhaustion of remedies – obligation to pursue executing court remedies before Court of Appeal.
|
6 March 2012 |
| February 2012 |
|
|
Failure to specify which part of a decision is appealed under Rule 83(3) is not fatal where the respondent is not prejudiced.
Civil procedure – Notice of appeal – Rule 83(3) – Failure to specify the part of the decision appealed against – Non-fatal where respondent not prejudiced – Record of appeal (Rule 96(1)(j)) – Amendment and curability of defects.
|
28 February 2012 |
|
An application supported by an affidavit containing hearsay and legal argument is incurably defective and must be struck out.
Court of Appeal — Affidavits — Requirement of personal knowledge; prohibition of hearsay, legal argument and prayers; expungement of offensive paragraphs — Incurably defective affidavits cannot support applications — Revisional powers and inherent jurisdiction — abuse of process where used to remedy counsel's procedural errors.
|
27 February 2012 |
|
A defective supporting affidavit renders a revision application incompetent and justifies striking it out with costs.
* Civil procedure – Affidavits – must contain facts within deponent's personal knowledge and avoid hearsay, legal argument or prayers. * Affidavits – expungement of offensive paragraphs and assessment whether remaining material supports the application; incurably defective affidavits must be struck out. * Revision – Court's inherent powers to call for records exist but party applications under Rule 65(3) require proper affidavit support; cannot be used to cure counsel's procedural errors. * Abuse of process – invoking inherent powers to remedy defective applications is impermissible.
|
27 February 2012 |
|
Appellant’s murder conviction quashed after key statements were expunged; conviction substituted for manslaughter and eight‑year term imposed.
Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned/confessional statements – compliance with Criminal Procedure Act (ss.50,51,57,58) – inadmissible if statutory safeguards not met; Evidence Act s.34B – compliance required when tendering deceased’s statement; conviction unsafe where key exhibits are expunged and remaining evidence shows lack of malice aforethought.
|
23 February 2012 |
|
Conviction for murder quashed due to inadmissible statements; substituted with manslaughter and eight‑year sentence.
Evidence — admissibility of deceased’s statement under s.34B Evidence Act — improper tendering by prosecutor; Criminal Procedure Act — cautioned statements: production, identification and compliance with sections 50–51, 57–58 and s.192 provisions; irregular preliminary hearing procedures; substitution of murder conviction with manslaughter; sentencing and credit for custody.
|
23 February 2012 |
|
|
23 February 2012 |
|
Affidavit lacking personal-knowledge facts and containing legal argument is incurably defective; application struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure — Affidavits — Must contain facts within deponent's personal knowledge and not legal argument or hearsay; offending paragraphs to be expunged; if remaining material is insufficient, affidavit is incurably defective. * Revisionary powers — Court may call for High Court records suo motu but should not use inherent powers to correct counsel's procedural errors or condone abuse of process. * Application competency — A Notice of Motion unsupported by a proper affidavit is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
23 February 2012 |