|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2013 |
|
|
An application for stay of execution based on an unappealable High Court refusal to entertain a reference was incompetent and struck out with costs.
Court of Appeal — stay of execution under Rule 11(2) CAR — appealability requirement; High Court refusal to entertain reference — not appealable under Order XL CPC; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4 — no blanket jurisdiction to hear unappealable orders; application incompetent and struck out with costs.
|
21 December 2013 |
|
A revisional order distinct from a review is reviewable; suo motu revision without hearing parties breaches audi alteram partem.
Court of Appeal — review v. revision — Rule 66(1) review limited to specified grounds; Rule 66(7) bars review of a decision on review — distinction between review of Court's own judgment and revision of High Court proceedings — revisional orders susceptible to review if distinct — audi alteram partem breached when Court invoked revision suo motu without hearing parties — remedy: vacatur of revisional limb and rehearing de novo.
|
19 December 2013 |
|
Court vacated its revision for denying the applicant a hearing and ordered Civil Application No. 35 of 2011 reheard de novo.
Court of Appeal — distinction between review and revision; Rule 66(7) finality of review decisions; Rule 66(1)(b) deprivation of opportunity to be heard; revisional orders made suo motu must afford parties hearing; remedy — rehearing de novo under Rule 66(6).
|
19 December 2013 |
|
An applicant must show good cause and specify Rule 66(1) grounds to obtain extension for filing a review.
Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – "good cause" requires consideration of length of delay, reasons, arguable case, prejudice; Review – Rule 66(1) – review confined to five specified grounds and must be specifically pleaded; Ignorance/prisoner status – mere ignorance or reliance on prison custody (s.363 CPA) without evidence does not constitute good cause; Inordinate delay – unexplained four-year delay fatal to extension application.
|
17 December 2013 |
|
An appeal from the High Court (Land Division) filed under the wrong rule and without required leave is incompetent and struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeal from High Court (Land Division) – requirement of leave under s.47(1) Cap. 216 – Notices of Appeal governed by Rule 83 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Rule 45 applies to leave applications – failure to comply is fatal, appeal incompetent and struck out.
|
13 December 2013 |
|
A Court of Appeal decision made on review is final; further review on the same matter is barred by Rule 66(7).
Civil procedure — Review — Finality of decisions on review — Rule 66(7) Court of Appeal Rules bars successive reviews; Execution — Jurisdiction to execute — Objection proceedings under section 38(1) CPC must be raised in executing court; Right to be heard — adequacy of oral and written submissions; Abuse of process — impermissible review-on-review.
|
12 December 2013 |
|
Nighttime identification and recent-possession evidence were unreliable; cautioned statement improperly recorded, so convictions quashed.
* Criminal law – Visual identification: offences at night require objective proof of lighting and conditions to exclude mistaken identity; * Evidence – Section 122 Evidence Act: courts must not rely on speculative inferences about lighting; * Evidence – Cautioned statements: improperly recorded cautioned statements are inadmissible; * Criminal law – Recent possession: requires proof of theft, close temporal proximity and reliable proof of possession/possession by accused.
|
11 December 2013 |
| November 2013 |
|
|
A Single Judge may refuse amendment under Rule 111 where procedural status is unclear and necessary documents are not produced.
Civil procedure — Amendment of memorandum of appeal — Rule 111 Court of Appeal Rules — Discretion to allow amendments limited by stage of appeal; Single Judge must avoid pre-empting Full Court; applicant must attach original memorandum and relevant preliminary objections.
|
21 November 2013 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction to review a Registrar's bail ruling; only the Registrar (or successor) may review such a decision.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Registrar's ruling – jurisdiction to review – review of Registrar's decision lies with the Registrar or successor, not a High Court judge; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.6(2) – D.P.P.'s right to appeal in criminal matters preserved; interlocutory decision – competence of appeal; procedural requirements for notice of appeal.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
A High Court judge lacked jurisdiction to review a Registrar’s ruling; the Court of Appeal quashed that review and allowed the D.P.P.’s appeal.
* Criminal procedure – Jurisdiction – Review of a Registrar’s ruling – Review lies with the decision-maker or successor, not an unrelated judge.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Director of Public Prosecutions – Right to appeal under s.6(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act preserved despite s.5(2)(d) amendments.
* Procedural law – Competence of appeal – requirements of notice of appeal where the High Court proceedings involve multiple accused.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Extension application dismissed for non-compliance with affidavit requirements under Court of Appeal Rules.
Procedure — Application for extension of time — Supporting affidavits — Joint affidavit must identify deponents — Unsigned/undated affidavit invalid — Compliance with Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (Rule 48(1)).
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Appeal struck out because an irregular registrar's certificate failed to exclude delay, rendering the appeal time-barred.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Time limits for instituting appeal – Application for copies within thirty days – Registrar’s certificate of delay under Rule 90(1) – Certificate must correctly exclude period required to prepare and deliver copies – Irregular/defective certificate does not cure time-bar – Incompetent appeal struck out.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Application to amend party names struck out for relying on wrong and non-existent Court of Appeal Rules.
* Civil procedure – amendment of appeal records – Rule 111 Court of Appeal Rules; * Civil procedure – leave to amend documents in applications – Rule 50(1) Court of Appeal Rules; * Rule 4(2)(a) is residual and not a substitute for specific Rules; * Non-citation or wrong citation of applicable Rules renders proceedings incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
19 November 2013 |
|
Rule 66(7) does not oust the Court of Appeal’s inherent power to review where parties were denied a hearing; rehearing ordered.
Court of Appeal inherent jurisdiction to review; interpretation of Rule 66(7) Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 2009; Rule 66(6) rehearing after review; procedural fairness—right to be heard before court exercises revision and directs mode of execution; applicability of Labour Court Rules vs Order XXI CPC.
|
19 November 2013 |
|
Conviction based on an equivocal plea and defective charge particulars is unsustainable; applicant released.
* Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Whether plea was unequivocal – Requirement that facts and particulars establish essential ingredients of offence. * Criminal procedure – Charge sheet – Proper statutory citation and particulars necessary for offences (armed robbery requires threat/use of violence). * Conviction unsafe where charge and factual basis are defective.
|
15 November 2013 |
|
A notice of appeal failing to state whether challenging conviction or sentence is incurably defective and renders the appeal incompetent.
* Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Mandatory particulars – Requirement to state whether appeal is against conviction, sentence or both – Failure renders notice incurably defective.
* Court Rules (2009) – Rule 68(2) & (7) – compliance essential for competence of appeal.
* Procedure – Incorrect case number in notice of appeal is irregular but omission to state subject of appeal goes to root.
* Remedy – An appeal founded on an incurably defective notice is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
12 November 2013 |
|
A defective Registrar’s certificate of delay cannot exclude time and a late appeal is incompetent and struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeal time limits – Application for copy of proceedings made within thirty days – Registrar’s certificate of delay required to exclude the period for preparation and delivery – Defective or misleading certificate cannot save an otherwise time‑barred appeal; appeal struck out.
|
12 November 2013 |
|
Failure to enter a statutory conviction renders the trial judgment invalid and the subsequent appeal a nullity.
* Criminal procedure – requirement to enter a formal conviction – section 235(1) Criminal Procedure Act – judgment invalid if conviction not entered; * Judgment content – section 312(2) Criminal Procedure Act – particulars of offence and sentence; * Appellate jurisdiction – High Court decision founded on invalid subordinate court judgment is a nullity; * Remedy – nullify proceedings, set aside judgment and remit record for proper judgment; * Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2).
|
12 November 2013 |
|
An order dismissing an appeal on technical grounds is not executable and cannot be stayed; application struck out.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution — Whether an order dismissing an appeal on technical grounds is capable of execution and thus susceptible to a stay — Competence of an application for extension of time to seek stay — Jurisdiction to stay non-executable orders.
|
12 November 2013 |
|
Appeal struck out where notice of appeal was defective, parties unnamed and inconsistent with the memorandum, rendering appeal incompetent.
Civil procedure — Appeals — Validity of Notice of Appeal — Requirement to name all parties (no representative suits before Court of Appeal) — Inconsistency between Notice and Memorandum of Appeal — Amendment under Rule 111 not available after preliminary objection — Incompetent appeal — Struck out with costs.
|
11 November 2013 |
|
Prisoner applicants failed to show good cause for a four‑year delay in seeking review; extension refused.
* Criminal procedure – Extension of time to file review – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to show good cause.* Prisoners’ applications – dependency on prison authorities does not automatically constitute good cause; must show prison conduct caused delay.* Delay caused by applicant’s dilatory conduct disentitles extension – unexplained multi‑year delay inordinate.* Previous out‑of‑time or defective applications do not cure original delay.
|
1 November 2013 |
| October 2013 |
|
|
Applicant's five‑year delay and lack of sufficient cause warranted dismissal of extension application to seek review.
Extension of time – requirements under Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules, 2009; notice of motion must cite specific rule (Rule 48(1)); obligation to show sufficient cause for delay; non-notification by court or prison authorities not per se sufficient cause.
|
31 October 2013 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause for extension of time to file a review; application dismissed.
Extension of time — Court of Appeal Rules 2009, Rule 10 — requirement to show sufficient cause; Rule 48(1) — notice of motion must cite specific rule and state grounds; mere procedural history or merits complaints do not constitute explanation for delay.
|
31 October 2013 |
|
Application for leave to appeal struck out for being filed after the 14‑day limit without grounds for extension.
* Appeal procedure – leave to appeal – Rule 45(b) – requirement to file application within 14 days after High Court refusal of leave.
* Extension of time – Rule 48(1) and Rule 10 – applicant must plead grounds in notice and affidavit to justify extension.
* Non‑compliance with prescribed time and failure to state grounds for extension – application struck out.
|
31 October 2013 |
|
An applicant must show good cause and link the delay to Rule 66(1) grounds to obtain extension for review.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time to apply for review – applicant must show good cause and link delay to Rule 66(1) grounds.
* Evidence – medical incapacity – medical records must cover the relevant limitation period to excuse delay.
* Procedure – lengthy unexplained delay (over five years) is fatal to an application for extension of time.
* Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to identify grounds under Rule 66(1) when seeking extension to apply for review.
|
30 October 2013 |
|
An extension to apply for review requires showing good cause and specifying intended Rule 66(1) grounds; review is not automatic.
Criminal procedure — extension of time (Rule 10) — good cause must be shown and must relate to intended grounds for review — review applications governed by Rule 66(1) — review is not an automatic right — late receipt of judgment and lack of legal aid in prison require substantiation.
|
30 October 2013 |
|
An extension application lacking the required notice of intention to appeal is incompetent and is struck out; labour rules dictate no costs.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – requirement of notice of intention to appeal under Rule 46(1) – absence renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out. * Labour law – costs in employment-related proceedings – Rule 51(1), G.N. No. 106/2007 precludes costs; applies by extension to Security of Employment disputes via s.2(1) Employment and Labour Relations Act. * Procedure – concession to preliminary objection tantamount to admission of incompetence of application.
|
30 October 2013 |
|
Unsubstantiated delay and failure to comply with service rules render an extension application fatally defective.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – applicant must justify each day of delay – requirement to attach supporting correspondence and proof of service – non-compliance with Court of Appeal Rules 49 and 55 fatal; locus to raise preliminary objection by impleaded respondent.
|
28 October 2013 |
|
Application to Court of Appeal was premature and incompetent for failing to re‑apply to the High Court under Rule 47.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – requirement under Rule 47 that applications which could be made to either High Court or Court of Appeal must first be made to the High Court – failure to comply is fatal.
* Affidavit practice – Order XIX r.3(1) CPC – affidavits must be confined to matters within deponent’s knowledge or, when belief is stated, sources must be specified.
* Court of Appeal Rules – applicability – substantive reliance on Limitation Act section 14 in Court of Appeal application is irregular and struck out.
* Affidavit credibility – isolated false averments may be expunged; they do not automatically vitiate entire affidavit where other paragraphs are reliable.
* Constitution – article 107A(2)(e) does not permit breach of vital procedural rules that go to root of case.
|
28 October 2013 |
|
Extension of time granted where applicant promptly pursued alternative remedy and raised arguable illegality of the decision.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – discretion to enlarge time upon good cause shown.
* Relevance of time spent prosecuting alternative remedies – inspiration from Law of Limitation Act (s.21(2)).
* Illegality of impugned decision as sufficient reason for extension – Principal Secretary v Devram Valambhia principle.
* Applicant diligence and promptness after learning of decision weighed in favour of extension.
|
25 October 2013 |
|
Bill of costs filed within 60 days valid; excessive instruction fees reduced to a reasonable taxed amount.
Costs—Bill of costs—timing: where Rules silent, bill should be filed within 60 days; Costs—Taxation—Rule 9(1),(2) Third Schedule—factors for instruction fees: amount involved, nature, importance, difficulty, conduct and resources; Excessive instruction fees may be reduced to a reasonable sum; Sub judice—pending unrelated proceedings do not bar taxation.
|
24 October 2013 |
|
A certificate under s.5(2)(c) is required for third appeals from High Court decisions in matters originating in a Primary Court; leave under s.5(1)(c) is not a substitute.
Appellate procedure — Third appeals — Proceedings originating in Primary Court (Head (c) Part III Magistrates' Courts Act) — Requirement of High Court certificate that a point of law is involved under section 5(2)(c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act — Distinction between certificate under s.5(2)(c) and leave under s.5(1)(c) — Failure to obtain certificate renders appeal incompetent.
|
23 October 2013 |
|
Application for stay of execution struck out for failure to properly move the Court by citing the correct rule.
* Civil procedure – stay of execution – necessity to properly move the Court – correct citation of jurisdiction-conferring rules (Rule 11(2)(b) & (c)) – mis-citation of Rule 11(2)(d) (factors only) renders application incompetent.
|
22 October 2013 |
|
A requester of certified appeal records who copies opposing counsel complies with the Rules; strike-out application was premature.
Civil procedure – striking out notice of appeal – failure to take essential steps; Registry request for certified copies – copying request to opposing counsel constitutes compliance with Rules; delay or loss at Registry not automatically fatal to appeal prosecution.
|
22 October 2013 |
|
Court quashed auction sale after decretal debt was paid, estopping creditor and ordering purchasers' refunds with interest.
Execution and sale—Enforcement of decree after payment; estoppel by conduct (Evidence Act s.123); variation of settlement by acceptance of late payments; court-ordered auction—title vests only upon confirmation and certificate of sale; remedy for bona fide purchasers—refund with interest and costs payable by enforcing creditor.
|
22 October 2013 |
|
Application struck out as applicants should have refiled in the High Court after their earlier application was struck out; each party to bear own costs.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – maintainability of application to Court of Appeal where earlier High Court application was struck out; procedural requirement to reapply to the court which struck out the matter before approaching the Court of Appeal.
* Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 107(1) – preliminary objections raised on maintainability of proceedings.
* Costs – labour disputes – practice of not condemning employees to costs; each party to bear own costs.
|
21 October 2013 |
|
Appeal not time-barred where extension and Registrar's certificate of delay were obtained and service requirements complied with.
* Appeals – time bar – whether appeal instituted within prescribed period – extension of time – Registrar's certificate of delay – service of notice and documents – compliance with Court of Appeal Rules.
|
18 October 2013 |
|
An application for revision filed beyond the mandatory sixty days is incompetent and will be struck out; scope confined to the notice of motion.
Civil procedure — Revision — Rule 65(4) Court of Appeal Rules — Mandatory sixty‑day limitation for party‑initiated revision — Filing outside period is fundamental irregularity and renders application incompetent; scope of revision confined to matters in the notice of motion.
|
18 October 2013 |
|
Failure to file written submissions within time does not automatically require dismissal; the Court may exercise discretion.
* Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 106(9): written submissions — failure to file does not mandate automatic dismissal; Court has discretion. * Rule 106(19): Court may waive compliance with procedural requirements relating to written submissions. * Preliminary objections — incompetence for non-compliance — absence of prejudice relevant to exercise of discretion.
|
11 October 2013 |
|
A jurat omitting the attesting officer's name is a curable defect; applicant allowed to file a fresh affidavit.
Civil procedure – Affidavit jurat – Omission of attesting officer's name; whether omission renders affidavit incurably defective or is curable by fresh affidavit – Court of Appeal precedent requiring opportunity to amend.
|
8 October 2013 |
|
Taxing officer reduced and disallowed excessive or unsubstantiated bill items, awarding Tshs.5,229,500 under Court of Appeal Rules.
* Taxation of costs – Court of Appeal Rules (Third Schedule) – Rule 9(2),(3): instruction fee and inclusion of attendances, correspondence and perusals. * Reasonableness of instruction fees – factors: amount involved, nature, importance and difficulty. * Receipts required for travel/taxi claims – disallowance where absent. * Taxing officer’s discretion to reduce or disallow excessive or duplicative items.
|
4 October 2013 |
| September 2013 |
|
|
Revision dismissed as incompetent because High Court remedy to set aside the ex parte order was still pending.
Appellate jurisdiction – Revision – Section 5(2)(d) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Revision barred where High Court remedies against interlocutory/ex parte orders remain pending; exhaustion of High Court remedies required before invoking Court of Appeal revisional jurisdiction; delay in hearing does not necessarily equate to refusal of jurisdiction.
|
30 September 2013 |
|
A revision notice must state specific grounds; interlocutory High Court orders are generally not revisable under section 5(2)(d).
* Appellate jurisdiction – Revision under section 4(3) – Distinction between challenge to correctness/legality/propriety of a specific decision and challenge to regularity of proceedings. * Civil procedure – Rule 65(1) & (3) – Notice of motion for revision must state specific grounds; omnibus or ambiguous grounds are incurably defective. * Statutory limitation – Section 5(2)(d) – Interlocutory or preliminary High Court orders are not revisable unless they finally determine the suit. * Preliminary objections – Competence – Objections on competence can dispose of revision applications where notice of motion fails mandatory requirements.
|
20 September 2013 |
|
Preliminary objections that litigate merits are premature in an extension application; the applicant's affidavit was proper.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objections – Applications for extension of time: objections going to merits are premature; affidavit must contain facts not arguments.
|
19 September 2013 |
|
A notice of appeal failing to state the nature of the conviction is fatally defective and the appeal is struck out.
Criminal procedure — Notice of appeal — Rule 61(2) (Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 1979) — Mandatory requirement to state nature of conviction or sentence — Failure to do so is a fatal irregularity rendering the appeal incompetent — Appeals struck out.
|
17 September 2013 |
|
An application was struck out as incompetent due to wrong citation; the Court made no order as to costs.
Court of Appeal — Competence of proceedings — Wrong citation — Preliminary objection conceded by applicant — Application struck out; no order as to costs.
|
16 September 2013 |
| August 2013 |
|
|
An appeal is incompetent and struck out if Rule 96(1) documents are omitted without directions under Rule 96(3).
Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 96(1)(a)–(k): scope and classification of primary/core documents for the record of appeal; Rule 96(3): necessity of directions to exclude any listed documents; interlocutory rulings and pre-decision documents are primary; Rule 111: amendment cannot add new documents; failure to lodge core documents renders appeal incompetent.
|
23 August 2013 |
|
|
22 August 2013 |
|
Acknowledgements and restructuring agreements reset limitation; the appellants' challenge to exhibits under stamp duty and evidence failed.
* Limitation law – accrual of cause of action – acknowledgments and restructuring agreements under section 27(3) of the Law of Limitation Act restart limitation period.
* Stamp Duty Act (Cap 189) – impounding and stamping – unstamped debt settlement/restructuring instruments can be admitted after compliance with stamping requirements.
* Evidence – non‑production of bank statements not necessarily fatal where other admissible evidence establishes indebtedness.
|
22 August 2013 |
| July 2013 |
|
|
Court nullified defective High Court proceedings and granted appellant 30 days to lodge a proper notice of appeal.
Criminal procedure — Notice of appeal — Rule 61(2) requirement to state nature of High Court order — competence of appeal; Extension of time — High Court power under s.11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act and concurrent relief under Court Rules (Rule 44/47) — "second bite" to Court of Appeal; Incorrectly instituted High Court proceedings — nullification and quashing under revisional powers (s.4(2)); Exercise of discretion by Court of Appeal to grant leave/extend time directly.
|
31 July 2013 |