|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2014 |
|
|
Record of appeal lacking trial‑endorsed exhibits was fatally defective; appeal struck out, no costs (point raised suo motu).
Civil procedure – Record of appeal – Requirement that copies of documentary exhibits in the record be the actual documents received and endorsed by the trial court (Order XIII r.4 CPC) – Rule 89(1)(f) Court of Appeal Rules – Non‑compliance renders record fatally defective – Appeal struck out.
|
28 November 2014 |
|
Preliminary objections requiring factual inquiry cannot be decided summarily; amendment of the revision application was permitted.
Companies law – winding-up proceedings – withdrawal and transfer of company affairs – locus standi – abuse of court process – preliminary objections must be pure points of law; factual issues require full hearing (Mukisa test).
|
27 November 2014 |
|
Court stayed execution of a labour award pending determination of the applicant's revision application.
Labour law – Stay of execution of CMA award – Application under Rule 4(2)(a) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Revision application pending – Garnishee proceedings may prejudice pending revision – Stay granted; no costs ordered.
|
18 November 2014 |
|
Application for release struck where applicant failed to produce a valid Notice of Appeal to establish Court of Appeal jurisdiction.
Criminal procedure — Appeal initiation — Requirement to produce a copy of the Notice of Appeal (Form B/1) to vest Court of Appeal jurisdiction; Exchequer receipts and registry correspondence insufficient as substitute proof; Rule 68 and Rule 75 compliance; Rule 4(2) relief conditional on proof of instituted appeal.
|
3 November 2014 |
| October 2014 |
|
|
A revision application must include the impugned decision; absence renders the application incompetent and it is struck out.
* Civil procedure – Revision – Applications for revision must be accompanied by a copy of the decision sought to be revised – Rule 4(2)(a) Court of Appeal Rules. * Incompetence – Failure to attach impugned ruling renders revision application incompetent and liable to be struck out. * Court may raise competency suo motu – where raised sua motu, court may refrain from making an order as to costs.
|
21 October 2014 |
|
|
16 October 2014 |
|
Appeal struck out because the tribunal judgment was not signed and certified by its members as required by Rule 21.
Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal — Rule 21 (GN No.56 of 2001) — signing and certification of tribunal judgments — mandatory duties of tribunal members — Registrar's certification insufficient — competence of appeal — Rule 96(1)(g) Court of Appeal Rules — Article 107A(2)(e) / Rule 2 cannot cure statutory breach.
|
16 October 2014 |
|
A tribunal judgment not certified by the members who heard the case renders the appeal incompetent; Registrar’s certification insufficient.
* Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal – Rule 21 – decision must be signed and certified by members who heard the appeal; both functions mandatory.
* Registrar’s certification does not substitute for certification by tribunal members; non-compliance renders appeal incompetent.
* Article 107A(2)(e) and Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules cannot cure an obvious statutory breach of Rule 21.
* Remedy: appeal struck out for incompetence; costs awarded.
|
2 October 2014 |
| September 2014 |
|
|
Ex parte appointment of receivers in chambers without hearing respondents was irregular and the orders were quashed; rehearing ordered.
Civil procedure – Appointment of receivers – Order XXXVIII CPC – No express ex parte power – Receiver appointment is serious and should be made in open court – Right to be heard – Proceedings, ruling and order made in chambers ex parte quashed.
|
30 September 2014 |
|
Ex parte appointment of receivers without notice violated right to be heard; High Court order quashed and rehearing ordered.
Civil procedure – Appointment of receivers – Order XXXVIII(1) CPC – Requirement of notice and inter partes hearing for receiver appointments – Ex parte chambers orders and procedural fairness – Sua sponte revision under s.4(3) AJA.
|
30 September 2014 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal, conditional on applicant furnishing security of Tshs 953,142,797.05.
Stay of execution – appellate discretion – balance of convenience and irreparable harm – conditional stay subject to security – commercial decree.
|
29 September 2014 |
|
Appeal dismissed where Attorney General was a necessary/proper party and statutory notice to sue government was not given.
* Civil procedure – amendment of pleadings – Order VI r.17 and Order 1 rr.9–10 – amendments permissible but not if made so late as to prejudice opposing party or absent necessary party.
* Government Proceedings Act – mandatory 90-day notice and requirement that suits against the Government be brought against the Attorney General.
* Joinder – Attorney General is a proper party where relief challenges acts said to be taken on the President's instruction; failure to join is ground for dismissal.
|
26 September 2014 |
|
High Court’s ex parte, summary appointment of receivers without hearing respondents was irregular and set aside.
* Civil Procedure – Order XXXVIII – Appointment of receivers – Seriousness of remedy – generally to be made in open court, not summary ex parte. * Civil Procedure – Service and hearing – absence of express ex parte provision in O.XXXVIII creates presumption of need to hear opposite party. * Administrative/Constitutional principle – right to be heard – respondents condemned unheard; order quashed. * Procedural irregularity – revisional jurisdiction of Court of Appeal suo motu to correct illegality.
|
25 September 2014 |
|
Trial was a nullity where a District Magistrate presided over proceedings in a Resident Magistrate's Court; conviction quashed.
Criminal procedure — Constitution of magistrates' courts — Section 6(1)(c) Magistrates' Courts Act — Proceedings held by a magistrate not empowered to sit in the designated court are nullities; conviction and appeal dependent on such proceedings are quashed — Discretion to order retrial rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions guided by public interest and availability of evidence (Article 59B(4)).
|
18 September 2014 |
|
Ignorance of court rules does not excuse failure to file mandatory written submissions; Reference dismissed for insufficient grounds.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 106(1) mandatory requirement to file written submissions – consequences under sub‑rules (9), (10) and discretion under (19).
* Procedural law – extension of time – Rule 48(1) requirement to state grounds for extension.
* Principle – ignorantia legis neminem excusat; ignorance of court rules or being a lay litigant is not a ground for dispensation.
|
16 September 2014 |
|
Delay by Registrar in supplying documents constituted good cause; applicant given leave to file stay application within 14 days.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — Application for stay of execution — Delay in obtaining High Court copies from Registrar — Good cause established — Other objections reserved for substantive hearing.
|
15 September 2014 |
|
A drawn/extracted order granting leave to appeal must be included in the record; omission makes the appeal incompetent.
Civil procedure – Appeal records – Rule 96(1)(i) Court of Appeal Rules – Requirement that an extracted/drawn order granting leave to appeal be annexed to the record – Distinction between "ruling" and "order" – Omission renders appeal incompetent.
|
12 September 2014 |
|
A leave-to-appeal decision must be extracted as an Order and annexed to the record; omission renders appeal incompetent.
Court of Appeal procedure — Rule 96(1)(i) — Leave to appeal — Decision granting leave must be extracted/drawn as an Order and annexed to the record; a ruling copy alone is insufficient; failure to include the extracted Order renders appeal incompetent.
|
10 September 2014 |
|
Ignorance of Court Rules does not excuse failure to file mandatory written submissions; reference dismissed.
* Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 106(1) – mandatory requirement to file written submissions – consequences of non-compliance under sub‑rules (9) and (10).
* Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 106(19) – exceptional circumstances to dispense with written submissions; discretion to be exercised judiciously.
* Civil procedure – Rule 48(1) – requirement to give grounds when applying for extension of time.
* Principle – ignorance of the law is no excuse; inability or limited education does not justify non‑compliance with mandatory procedural rules.
|
9 September 2014 |
| August 2014 |
|
|
Court of Appeal lacks power to give advisory directions on pending High Court matters; record remitted for a High Court ruling.
Appellate jurisdiction — limits of Court of Appeal’s powers — no power to 'state a case' or give advisory directions akin to Civil Procedure Code s.77; intervention only by appeal or revision after decision (Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4); High Court judge must determine jurisdictional issues after hearing parties; natural justice (audi alteram partem).
|
20 August 2014 |
|
The applicant failed to show good cause for extension to file a review; review cannot challenge the judgment’s merits.
* Criminal procedure — Application for extension of time to file review — Applicant must show good cause (Rule 10).
* Review procedure — Review limited to correcting irregularities causing injustice; not a rehearing on merits; grounds under Rule 66(1).
* Procedural proof — Unsubstantiated claim of filing via prison authorities insufficient to excuse delay.
|
13 August 2014 |
|
No duty exists to inform an appellant of a right to review; failure to show good cause—extension refused.
Criminal procedure – extension of time under Rule 10 – requirement to show good cause; Court of Appeal review – distinction from appeal; no duty on Registrar or counsel to inform appellant of a right to review; finality of Court of Appeal decisions subject only to Rule 66(1)(a)–(e).
|
13 August 2014 |
|
Court of Appeal may grant extension of time after High Court refusal; incorrect citation of law is not automatically fatal.
Extension of time; jurisdiction of Court of Appeal to hear fresh extension applications after High Court refusal; Court of Appeal Rules r.10; incorrect citation of law not necessarily fatal; requirement of good cause for extension.
|
4 August 2014 |
|
A law‑firm stamp on a summons without endorsement does not constitute valid service; endorsement or affidavit is required.
Civil procedure – Service of process – Court of Appeal Rules r.22 read with Civil Procedure Code r.16 – endorsement/acknowledgement of service required; a law‑firm stamp alone is insufficient to constitute service.
|
1 August 2014 |
| July 2014 |
|
|
An unsubstantiated claim of prison delay and a vague allegation of "manifest error" do not justify extension of time for review.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time – Rules 10 and 66(3) Court of Appeal Rules – requirements for "good cause" (account for delay, non‑contribution, arguable case).
* Review applications – must be founded on grounds in Rule 66(1); bare assertions of "manifest error" without particulars are insufficient.
* Proof of external delay – allegations of prison transmission failure require supporting affidavit or evidence from prison authorities.
|
25 July 2014 |
|
An interlocutory High Court ruling not finally determining the suit is not appealable under s5(2)(d) AJA; appeal struck out.
* Appellate Jurisdiction Act s5(2)(d) – interlocutory High Court orders not appealable unless they finally determine the suit.
* Civil procedure – interlocutory orders – res judicata/functus officio – effect on appealability.
* Collateral order doctrine – not recognised as an exception in Tanzanian jurisprudence.
* Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 49(2) – supplementary affidavits require prior leave or consent.
|
20 July 2014 |
|
A trial judge erred by withdrawing and ordering retrial before delivering a reserved ruling; successor judge controls retrial under s.299.
* Criminal Procedure Act (Cap 20) s.299 – power to continue trial, recall witnesses or order retrial vests in successor judge; successor judge must inform accused of rights.
* Duty to deliver reserved ruling — predecessor judge should not withdraw and order retrial before pronouncing ruling.
* Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(3) – invocation of revisional powers to correct procedural irregularity.
|
16 July 2014 |
|
Rape conviction quashed for insufficient and inadmissible confession evidence; grievous harm conviction upheld.
Criminal law – sufficiency of evidence for rape; cautioned statements – limits of questioning under s.53(b) CPA and admissibility where caution relates only to one offence; PF3 and initial complaint as material corroboration; plea-taking procedural requirements.
|
16 July 2014 |
|
|
16 July 2014 |
|
Review dismissed for failing to plead Rule 66 grounds and for raising appellate matters; s.28 TRA irrelevant to employment status.
* Civil procedure — Review jurisdiction — limited grounds under Rule 66 — review not substitute for appeal; * Review incompetent where Notice of Motion fails to specify statutory ground; * Employment law — s.28 TRA Act deals with vesting of assets/liabilities, not employment status; * Alleged procedural unfairness and appellate complaints are not proper bases for review.
|
14 July 2014 |
| May 2014 |
|
|
Summary dismissal that denies a hearing is an illegality and justifies extension of time to appeal.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to show good cause.
* Natural justice – right to be heard – summary dismissal without hearing vitiates proceedings.
* Illegality – an impugned decision tainted by illegality constitutes good cause to extend time to appeal.
|
23 May 2014 |
|
Failure to cite the enabling rule renders an application incompetent; summary dismissal without hearing is illegality warranting extension of time.
Civil procedure — non-citation of enabling rule (Rule 48) — application rendered incompetent and struck out; affidavit jurat defects — admissibility issue; Court may raise non-compliance suo motu. Civil procedure — extension of time under Rule 10 — summary dismissal denying hearing amounts to illegality and constitutes good cause for extension to file notice of appeal and seek leave to appeal.
|
23 May 2014 |
|
An inadvertent omission to file reply submissions constituted good cause for a short extension under Rule 10; no costs.
Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – good cause shown by inadvertent filing error; no objection from respondent; court exercises discretion to grant extension and imposes short filing deadline due to imminent hearing.
|
13 May 2014 |
| April 2014 |
|
|
A plaintiff must obtain leave under Order II Rule 2(3) before bringing a second suit on the same cause of action.
Civil Procedure — Order II Rule 2(3) CPC — multiplicity of suits — same cause of action — leave required before suing again for omitted reliefs — failure to obtain leave renders second suit bad in law.
|
17 April 2014 |
|
High Court exceeded its mandate by deciding eviction and lease validity during an interlocutory injunction application.
Land jurisdiction – effect of Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No.2/2010; Interlocutory relief – limits of powers when hearing temporary injunctions; Principles for injunctions – prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm; Excess of jurisdiction – judge improperly deciding substantive issues (eviction order and lease validity) in interlocutory proceedings.
|
2 April 2014 |
| March 2014 |
|
|
Proceedings instituted without prior DPP consent and without arraignment were nullities; conviction and sentences quashed.
Criminal procedure — s.94(1) CPA: DPP's consent required before institution of proceedings — institution occurs on filing information; retrospective consent invalid — arraignment mandatory (ss.275,276 CPA) — preliminary objections heard pre‑plea prejudicial — defects not curable under s.388 CPA — proceedings and judgment nullity — revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA — DPP discretion to retry.
|
28 March 2014 |
|
The appellants’ convictions quashed for denial of cross‑examination and reliance on uncorroborated retracted confessions.
Criminal procedure — right to cross‑examination (s290 CPA); admissibility of medical reports (s240(3), s291 CPA); duty to inform accused of right to summon medical witness; competence of police to tender post‑mortem reports; treatment and weight of retracted cautioned/confessional statements; necessity of trial‑within‑trial on voluntariness; assessors’ entitlement to be informed of critical evidence.
|
27 March 2014 |
|
An appeal from the High Court in land matters requires prior leave under section 47(1) of the Land Courts Act.
Land law – Appeals from High Court in land matters – Requirement of prior leave under section 47(1) Land Courts Act – Effect of Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No.2 of 2010 – Interpretation of "may" as to appellant's election not as dispensing with leave – Jurisdictional consequence: appeal struck out for want of leave.
|
12 March 2014 |
|
The applicant failed to show sufficient cause and non-compliance with section 47(1) rendered the extension application incompetent, so it was struck out with costs.
Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to show sufficient cause; delay due to inaction or lack of diligence; two-stage delay analysis; competence – effect of failure to obtain leave under section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act; Rule 58(3) power to strike out; merits not considered where application incompetent.
|
12 March 2014 |
|
Conviction for armed robbery upheld: preliminary hearing lawfully held and eyewitness credibility established identity beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – proof of violence or threat; identity evidence – eyewitness credibility and corroboration; preliminary hearing and compliance with s.192 Criminal Procedure Act; scope for disturbing concurrent findings of fact on second appeal.
|
10 March 2014 |
|
Appeal dismissed: eyewitness credibility and supporting evidence established appellant's identity and guilt for armed robbery.
Criminal law — Armed robbery — Identification by eyewitnesses — Credibility of victim as basis for conviction; Evidence — Recovered exhibits (money and knife); Criminal procedure — Section 192 CPA and preliminary hearing; Appellate review — Concurrent findings of fact not to be disturbed absent misapprehension of evidence.
|
10 March 2014 |
|
Application for revision struck out for failing to attach impugned orders, premature challenge to interlocutory rulings, and incorrect legal citation.
Appellate jurisdiction – Revision – Interlocutory orders not appealable or revisable unless final – Requirement to attach impugned orders to revision application – Wrong citation of law renders application incompetent – Procedural compliance under Rule 65.
|
6 March 2014 |
|
Convictions quashed where visual ID, recent-possession proof and cautioned statements were unreliable or improperly admitted.
* Criminal law – visual identification – requirements including description of light, proximity and early description; dock identification unreliable without identification parade. * Criminal law – recent possession – property must be sufficiently identified and linked to complainant; prosecution must prove ownership and recent theft. * Evidence – cautioned/confessional statements – voluntariness burden on prosecution; when objected to, a trial-within-trial or inquiry is mandatory. * Burden of proof – courts must not shift burden by treating defence weaknesses as strengthening prosecution case.
|
1 March 2014 |
| February 2014 |
|
|
A defective charge and unproven voluntariness of a cautioned statement rendered the armed robbery conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – armed robbery – particulars of offence must state essential ingredients and person against whom violence was directed; Criminal procedure – cautioned statement – voluntariness and admissibility; Evidence – possession and statement insufficient where charge defective and testimony inconsistent; Benefit of doubt and safety of conviction.
|
20 February 2014 |
|
Ignorance of law or counsel's mistake does not constitute sufficient cause to extend time for filing a notice of appeal.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – sufficient cause required to extend time to file notice of appeal. * Procedural law – repeated filings and withdrawals do not necessarily amount to pursuing alternative remedies. * Legal principle – ignorance of the law or counsel’s mistake is not sufficient cause. * Practice – second or successive applications for extension must still show sufficient cause.
|
19 February 2014 |
|
An applicant must obtain or be refused High Court leave before seeking Court of Appeal extension for leave to appeal.
Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 45(a) & (b): requirement to apply to High Court for leave and the 14‑day rule; Land Disputes Act s.47(1): appeals from Land Division require High Court leave; Distinction between striking out for incompetence and refusal on merits; Procedural competence — Court of Appeal cannot entertain extension where High Court has not refused leave.
|
18 February 2014 |
|
An application founded on wrong legal provisions is incompetent and must be struck out, not adjudicated on its merits.
* Civil procedure – competence of applications – application based on wrong legal foundation – incompetent application to be struck out, not heard on merits.
* Court of Appeal Rules – extension of time – Rule 10 (not Rule 8) governs applications for extension of time before the Court of Appeal.
* Judicial procedure – where court finds wrong legal basis, proper remedy is striking out the application.
|
18 February 2014 |
|
Failure to state grounds for review and filing an argumentative affidavit warrant striking out the review application.
Court of Appeal Rules, r.66(3) – Notice of Motion for review must set out clear grounds; failure is fatal; Affidavit requirements – must contain facts not legal argument or conclusions; defective affidavits are to be struck out; Procedural practice – applicants should not file preliminary objections against respondents' preliminary objections.
|
17 February 2014 |
|
Application for extension of time was incompetent since applicant failed to first seek relief from the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal.
* Tax Revenue Appeals Act s.25(1),(2) – appeals to Court of Appeal from Tribunal – procedure governed by Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Court of Appeal Rules; * Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 47 requires initial application to High Court/tribunal; * Competence – premature application to Court of Appeal struck out; * Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.11 – concurrent jurisdiction but Rule 47 binding; * Criminal exception under Rule 47 not applicable to civil matters.
|
14 February 2014 |
|
A taxation reference must raise law or principle; inability to pay does not justify varying a taxed bill.
Court of Appeal rules (Rule 125) Taxation reference limited to law or principle; not a forum to re-open quantum; taxing officer's decision must show error of law or principle to warrant interference; impecuniosity not a sufficient ground to reduce taxed costs.
|
12 February 2014 |