|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2025 |
|
|
Applicant failed to account for each day of delay and alleged illegality was not apparent on the record; extension refused.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 – Applicant must account for every day of delay; delay must not be inordinate; illegality as ground for extension must be apparent on the face of the record; failure to account for delay and reliance on non-apparent illegality warrants dismissal.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
Prisoner’s ignorance of filing time-limits and unaccounted delay do not constitute good cause to extend time to seek review.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Good cause; accounting for delay; diligence.
* Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – extension requires showing good cause.
* Rule 66(1) Court of Appeal Rules – review grounds: manifest error; denial of hearing; illegality.
* Prisoner litigant – ignorance of law/time limits is not sufficient cause.
* Procedure – respondent’s failure to file affidavit implies no factual dispute but legal challenge remains.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
A re-assignment of an appeal without administrative justification vitiated jurisdiction; proceedings were nullified and remitted.
* Civil procedure – Transfer and assignment of appeals – Administrative powers of Judge In-charge under Land Disputes Courts Act – once an appeal is transferred and assigned to one resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction the file remains pending before that assignee and cannot be re-assigned without justification.
* Jurisdiction – Proceedings conducted by a magistrate lacking lawful assignment are null and void.
* Procedural irregularity – Interlocutory orders by magistrates not properly assigned are tainted by jurisdictional defect.
* Remedy – Nullification of proceedings and judgment; remittance for rehearing; costs each party to bear own.
|
13 November 2025 |
|
Delay not adequately explained and unsupported sickness claim: extension of time to appeal dismissed for lack of sufficient cause.
Criminal procedure – Application for extension of time – Applicants must account for each day of delay; illness and transfers require supporting medical evidence; discretion to extend time is judicial and governed by reason and precedent (e.g., Bushiri).
|
13 November 2025 |
|
Documents not submitted with an objection are inadmissible on TRAB appeal unless leave is granted; appeal dismissed with costs.
Tax procedure — requirement to submit all documents with notice of objection (TAA s.51(5),(6)) — TRAB rule 16(5) bars fresh evidence on appeal without leave — audit‑stage documents not automatically admissible on appeal.
|
13 November 2025 |
|
Court allowed amendment of notice of appeal to correct a High Court case number and granted leave to file a supplementary record.
* Civil procedure – Appeal – Amendment of notice of appeal – Court’s power under rule 111 to amend appellate documents to correct errors in cited High Court case number.
* Civil procedure – Amendment factors – Need for amendment, nature and extent, party conduct, timing, prejudice and stage of proceedings.
* Civil procedure – Supplementary record – Leave to file supplementary record to include amended documents under rule 4(2)(a) and (b).
|
12 November 2025 |
|
Whether service fees are business profits under DTA Article 7 and whether strategic investor interest exemption is automatic.
* Tax law – Double Taxation Agreement (Article 7) – interpretation of 'business profits' – service fees paid to non-resident service providers do not constitute business profits under Article 7 and fall under other income subject to withholding tax. * Domestic effect of treaties – section 128(1) ITA – DTA gives effect but does not change Article 7 interpretation in domestic context. * Strategic investor incentives – section 19 TIA and ITA sections 10(1)(3) and 82(2)(e) – withholding tax exemption on foreign loan interest requires Ministerial Government Notice. * Precedent – doctrine of stare decisis; no conflict between Kilombero I/Mlimani I and Kilombero II; binding authority maintained.
|
11 November 2025 |
|
The bank lawfully recalled the project loan; buyer protected as bona fide purchaser; the High Court’s damages award and annulment of sale were erroneous.
Contract law — interpretation of express loan terms (grace period, tranche disbursement conditions); guarantor locus standi; non‑joinder and Order 1 r.9 CPC; lawful exercise of power of sale and protection of bona fide purchaser under s.135 Land Act; improper/unsubstantiated award of general damages.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Whether witnesses reading admitted office records give direct evidence and whether plots were lawfully occupied relative to applicable railway legislation.
* Evidence — Oral evidence — Witnesses testifying on office records admitted in evidence constitute direct evidence under s.67 Evidence Act and are not hearsay.
* Railways law — Applicability of railway strip measurements — Temporal application of Railways Act 1977, Railways Act 2002 (urban 15m/rural 30m) and Railways Act 2017 (30m each side) relevant to determination of encroachment.
* Compensation — Burden of proof — party alleging payment must prove it on balance of probabilities; absence of proof defeats claim.
* Civil procedure — Pleadings and reliefs — court may grant reliefs pleaded by parties; not a suo motu act if reliefs were pleaded and issues framed.
|
6 November 2025 |
| October 2025 |
|
|
Application for stay of execution granted pending appeal, conditional on a TZS 500,000,000 bank guarantee.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution pending appeal — Rules 11(3)-(7) Court of Appeal Rules — Proof of service of notice of execution — postal tracking insufficient without affidavits of process server/Registrar — requirement of good cause: timeous application, risk of substantial loss, security — court's discretion to fix suitable security for non-monetary decree.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
A credible allegation of jurisdictional illegality can justify extension of time despite an unexplained delay.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time under Rule 10 – discretionary exercise – factors: length of delay, reasons, prejudice, conduct and balance of interests. * Illegality – alleged jurisdictional error in impugned decision may constitute good cause for extension. * Failure to account for each day of delay – relevant but may be outweighed by a bona fide allegation of illegality. * Service of appeal documents – compliance with prescribed time and methods.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal; both parties must file commitment bonds to preserve matrimonial assets.
Civil procedure – stay of execution pending appeal – requirements under Court of Appeal Rules 11(4),(5),(7) – preservation of status quo – commitment bond as adequate security for matrimonial/landed property.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
Extension of time refused; applicant failed to show good cause or an apparent illegality on the record.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time to apply for review — Requirements under Rules 10 and 66(1) — Good cause, length and reasons for delay, prejudice, diligence — Illegality must be apparent on the face of the record to justify extension.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Court stayed execution pending appeal after finding applicant would suffer irreparable loss and offering a written bond as security.
Court of Appeal — Stay of execution — Rules 11(3)–(7) of the Court of Appeal Rules — Timeliness of application — Balance of convenience and irreparable harm — Security for due performance in non‑monetary decrees — Written bond undertaking to maintain status quo.
|
17 October 2025 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal where demolition risk constituted irreparable harm and a firm land security was offered.
* Civil procedure – stay of execution pending appeal – compliance with Rule 11 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
* Time limits – struck-out execution application does not sustain a time-bar objection to a later, fresh execution notice.
* Substantive relief – demolition of a dwelling constitutes irreparable harm warranting stay of execution.
* Security – firm undertaking to furnish land (100 acres) can suffice as security under Rule 11(5).
|
13 October 2025 |
|
The respondent proved ownership on the balance of probabilities; the appellant's appeal is dismissed with costs.
* Evidence – Civil burden and standard – burden lies on party who alleges; proof on balance of probabilities.
* Land disputes – proof of ownership – value of administrative correspondence (letters acknowledging Letter of Offer) as evidence.
* Evidence – inadmissible/unadmitted documents – annexures not admitted as exhibits cannot be relied upon.
* Land law – disposition/transfer – approval requirements under Land Act raised but not determined where disputed document not admitted.
|
13 October 2025 |
|
Appeal upheld in part: matrimonial assets properly apportioned 40:60, Ilazo property to be sold and proceeds shared per ratio.
Family law - Division of matrimonial property under s.114 Law of Marriage Act; assessment of contributions and inclination towards equality; proof and identification of matrimonial assets; treatment of alleged dissipation of assets; evidential requirement for title/ownership; sale of encumbered matrimonial property and proceeds distribution.
|
13 October 2025 |
|
Termination was substantively and procedurally unfair because the employer failed to conduct the required investigation.
Employment law – unfair termination – employer’s burden to prove fairness under s.39 ELRA – mandatory investigation before disciplinary hearing (Rule 13(1) Code of Good Practice and internal policy) – mitigation not admission – procedural failure vitiates substantive fairness.
|
13 October 2025 |
|
A headline with its article may identify the appellant, but fair reporting of an official briefing attracts qualified privilege.
* Defamation – libel – headline and body read together can refer to a person; context matters. * Qualified privilege (Media Services Act s.39(a)) – fair report of official press briefing; media duty to inform; absence of malice. * Distinction between statutory offence of diversion and theft – immaterial to ordinary reader when both convey criminality. |
10 October 2025 |
|
Applicant’s rape and sodomy convictions quashed where complainant’s account was ambiguous and medical evidence was not produced.
* Criminal law – Sexual offences – rape and sodomy – requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
* Evidence – complainant’s testimony – can be best evidence but must be tested for credibility.
* Medical evidence – duty to call examining doctor and tender PF3; unexplained absence permits adverse inference (Azizi Abdalah).
* Proof of penetration – essential element for rape and for establishing sodomy.
* Reasonable doubt – gaps in prosecution case warrant acquittal.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Court upheld conviction and life sentence for sodomy of a nine‑year‑old; procedural omissions found non‑prejudicial.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence (s154 Penal Code) – proof of penetration and identity; admissibility of cautioned statement – compliance with four‑hour interview rule; accused’s right to be furnished with complainant’s statement (s10(3) CPA) – omission non‑fatal if no prejudice; failure to call witnesses – materiality test; proof of victim’s age for sentencing (PF3).
|
10 October 2025 |
|
The Court upheld a rape conviction, finding procedural lapses harmless and the prosecution proved age, identity and penetration.
Criminal law – rape – elements: age, identity, penetration; Preliminary hearings – memorandum of undisputed matters; Criminal Procedure – duty to supply complainant’s statement; Evidence – admissibility/authentication of witness testimony; Adverse inference – non-production of witnesses and materiality.
|
7 October 2025 |
|
Defective consent/certificate deprived the trial court of jurisdiction; proceedings quashed and retrial refused, appellant released.
* Jurisdiction under EOCCA – consent of DPP and certificate of Regional Prosecution Officer must correctly cite charging provisions to confer jurisdiction; omission vitiates proceedings.
* Criminal procedure – defective consent/certificate renders trial court proceedings a nullity.
* Retrial – discretionary and refused where retrial would occasion injustice (illegal search, failure to tender exhibits, omission to call material witnesses).
|
7 October 2025 |
|
Adverse possession cannot be invoked where the claimant asserts original acquisition; trial judgment reinstated and High Court decision quashed.
* Land law — adverse possession — elements and statutory period; inapplicability where claimant asserts original acquisition of virgin land.
* Evidence — inheritance claims — need for chain of title or indicators (e.g., burial) and effect of unadministered estate.
* Appellate review — deference to trial tribunal credibility findings; overturn only for material misapprehension or omission.
* Civil procedure — locus in quo visits relevant but not decisive where tribunal’s evaluation of evidence is sound.
|
7 October 2025 |
|
Conviction for possession of elephant tusks upheld; remand period of 2,532 days deducted from 20-year sentence.
Criminal procedure – provision of complainant’s statement – omission curable where no prejudice; Accelerated trial – memorandum requirement complied with; Admission of documents – reading out requirement observed; Seizure – emergency search justifies absence of independent witness; Wildlife law – wildlife officer competent to certify trophy under WCA s86(4); Burden of proof – accused must prove lawful possession under WCA s100(3); Sentencing – remand custody must be credited against sentence under CPA provisions.
|
7 October 2025 |
|
Divorce valid where talaq and Ward Tribunal certificate complied with law; non‑financial contributions justify share in matrimonial property.
* Family law – Divorce – Validity of divorce where talaq confirmed by Qadhi Court and Marriage Conciliation Board certificate (Form No. 3) under s.101 LMA.* Family law – Matrimonial property – Definition and division; contribution includes non‑financial/domestic services; court may distribute property despite unequal financial contributions.* Procedure – Ward Tribunal acting as Marriage Conciliation Board; compliance with Marriage Conciliation Boards (Procedure) Regulations (Form No. 3).
|
7 October 2025 |
|
Conviction upheld; exhibits partly expunged; fines replaced by 20‑year imprisonments with remand credit.
Criminal law – Appellate jurisdiction – new grounds not entertained; Preliminary hearing – memorandum of agreed facts – omission affects only preliminary hearing; Fair trial – supply of complainant’s statement – curable irregularity; Evidence – cautioned statements – admissibility and proper recording; Evidence – independent witness sufficient; Exhibits – failure to read admitted documents – irregularity leading to expungement; Sentencing – economic offences under EOCCA require imprisonment (min. 20 years) and remand credit.
|
7 October 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for an eight‑day delay; extension of time refused and application dismissed.
* Civil procedure — Extension of time — Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules — Applicant must show "good cause" and account for each day of delay; technical delay not a panacea without evidence of illegality or adequate explanation. * Evidence — Effect of respondent not filing affidavit in reply — facts in applicant's affidavit taken as undisputed but respondent may challenge points of law. * Authorities — Fortunatus Masha (distinction between real and technical delay); Bushiri (account for each day).
|
3 October 2025 |
|
Alleged Registrar non‑notification and counsel negligence did not justify extension of time; application dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – application to serve notice of appeal and request for record – requirements for granting enlargement of time; illegality must be apparent on the face of the record. * Negligence of former counsel – not a sufficient ground without corroborating affidavit evidence. * Affidavit evidence – statements referring to third parties are hearsay unless corroborated by those persons.
|
2 October 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to establish good cause for nine‑year delay; application for extension of time dismissed.
Civil procedure – extension of time – rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to show good cause: length and reasons for delay, diligence, prejudice and whether illegality is apparent on record (Lyamuya/Valambhia).; Service – rule 55 – applicant must effect or demonstrate substituted service; failure to prove non-service may not invalidate application where whereabouts unknown.; Labour matters – costs ordinarily not awarded.
|
2 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
Foreign or ARIPO-registered trademarks do not confer enforceable exclusive rights in Tanzania without domestic registration.
Trade marks — territoriality of registration — exclusive right arises from domestic registration — foreign/ARIPO registration not enforceable in Tanzania absent local protection — infringement requires likelihood of confusion and local registration; damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
|
26 September 2025 |
|
Failure by a successor judge to record reasons for taking over a trial vitiates proceedings and mandates retrial.
Order XVIII r.10(1) CPC – Successor judge’s duty to record reasons on taking over partly heard trial; failure to record reasons is a jurisdictional/procedural irregularity; such defect cannot be cured by the overriding objective; retrial ordered from stage where successor took over.
|
26 September 2025 |
|
Rule 45A(a) does not permit extension to file a revision application; it applies only after refusal of extension to lodge a notice of appeal.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules r.45A(a) – Interpretation and scope – Rule applies where High Court refused extension to lodge a notice of appeal, not to refusal of extension to file a revision application. * Competence – An application invoking r.45A(a) is incompetent if prerequisite High Court application for extension to lodge a notice of appeal was not made. * Procedure – Court may proceed in absence of applicant’s counsel where hearing notice was properly served and written submissions exist.
|
25 September 2025 |
|
An advertisement by receiver-managers can constitute notice of intended execution, supporting a conditional stay pending appeal.
Stay of execution pending appeal; notice of intended execution may be by advertisement or conduct; receivers’ advertisement can trigger Rule 11(7)(d); stay requires substantial loss, promptness, and adequate security; bank guarantees required for monetary decrees.
|
25 September 2025 |
|
Appellant bank breached the LC by honouring a non-complying provisional invoice; 23% pre-judgment interest set aside.
Banking law – Letters of credit – strict compliance with LC terms; Documentary credits governed by UCP 600; Provisional invoice procedure (Field 47A(8)) inapplicable where LC specifies price and quantity; Banks must examine documents on their face; Non-complying presentation and wrongful payment give right to refund; Pre-judgment interest must be pleaded and proved.
|
24 September 2025 |
|
Appellant's loan default upheld; mortgage enforcement and contractual 27% interest award affirmed; banking regulations inapplicable.
Contract law – sanctity of contract; enforcement of mortgage; contractual (penal) interest enforceable where agreed; Bank of Tanzania regulations (G.N. No.287/2014) regulate supervision and do not bar contractual claims between bank and customer; appellate review of factual findings in rehearing appeals.
|
23 September 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for extension; unsupported claims and hearsay resulted in dismissal with costs.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time under Rule 10 – requirement to show good cause; factors include length of delay, reason, and prejudice.
* Evidence – affidavits and documentary proof – written follow-ups must be produced where alleged; unidentified statements by third parties are hearsay unless those persons depose.
* Judicial discretion – must be exercised judiciously and not to assist deliberate attempts to delay or obstruct justice.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal after electronic notice of appeal validated and bank guarantee ordered.
Stay of execution — Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 11 — timeliness, irreparable loss, security; validity of electronically filed notice of appeal; electronic filing rules as functional equivalent to physical endorsements; bank guarantee as security; labour matters — no costs.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
An application for extension to lodge a Bill of Costs improperly brought before a Single Justice is incompetent and dismissed.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — rule 10 (enlargement of time) — meaning of "Court" and rule 3 exclusion of Deputy Registrar; Bill of Costs — jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar (item 2, 3rd Schedule); rule 48(1) proviso — mis-citation cannot cure absence of jurisdiction; incompetence and dismissal with costs.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
An advocate's appearance in another High Court matter does not automatically constitute 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance under Commercial Court Rules.
Commercial Court rules – pre-trial conference – dismissal for non-appearance – 'sufficient cause' – advocate engaged in another court – rule 46(1)(c) superior court exception – duty to notify or arrange representation.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
Extension denied where applicant failed to show good cause, substantiate illness or account for a seven-year delay.
Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 10 extension of time; Rule 66(1) grounds for review — applicant must show good cause and at extension stage indicate grounds for review by affidavit; Delay — inordinate seven-year delay requires full explanation; Prisoner applicants — reliance on prison authorities must be supported by affidavit; Medical evidence — illness claims require corroboration.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
Extension granted to enable appeal of jurisdictional illegality despite applicant’s inadequate account and lack of documentary proof.
Court of Appeal — extension of time under Rule 10 — requirement to account for each day of delay — alleged illegality (jurisdictional defect where marriage governed by Islamic law and invalid conciliatory certificate) may constitute good cause if apparent on record — necessity of documentary proof for advocate’s illness/death and party’s incapacity.
|
19 September 2025 |
|
Applicant's extension for review refused for failing to account for delay and to show an arguable manifest error.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time to file application for review — Applicant must account for all delay and show diligence; prison officers' affidavit required to corroborate alleged institutional delay; review application must specify manifest error on face of record.
|
19 September 2025 |
|
Extension granted to file review because alleged illegality (denial of hearing) justified extension despite unexplained delay.
* Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — guided by Lyamuya factors but factors not cumulative; good cause required.
* Illegality — Alleged denial of right to be heard constitutes sufficient reason to grant extension despite failure to account for delay.
* Review procedure — Rule 66 review application may be entertained where illegality is alleged.
* Functus officio — distinction between restoration of ex parte judgment and extension to file review; Court not barred from considering alleged illegality here.
* Pleading requirements — reasons for delay must be disclosed in supporting affidavit; statements from the bar are insufficient.
|
19 September 2025 |
|
Appellant succeeds where respondents failed to prove payment; retracted bank credit and clearance alone were insufficient.
Banking law – alleged electronic credit entry and retracted clearance – burden of proof lies on party asserting payment – necessity of independent bank evidence (SWIFT/transfer instructions/audit/forensic reports) – retracted bank credit and credit clearance insufficient alone to prove payment.
|
18 September 2025 |
|
Second‑bite extension filed after 14‑day rule 45A(1) period without certificate was time‑barred and struck out with costs.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — rule 45A(1),(2) — second‑bite applications for extension of time — requirement to file within 14 days or obtain certificate of delay — non‑compliance renders application incompetent — striking out with costs.
|
18 September 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause or apparent illegality to justify extension of time to file reference; application dismissed with costs.
Court of Appeal — extension of time to file reference — requirement to account for each day of delay; hearsay and need for supporting affidavit where facts require proof by another person; apparent illegality as ground for extension — must be obvious on face of record; discretion to refuse extension where delay unexplained.
|
17 September 2025 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal where applicant showed irreparable harm, timely action, and offered bank-guarantee security.
Court of Appeal – stay of execution – Notice of Appeal suffices to invoke jurisdiction – Rule 11(5) requirements: irreparable/substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, provision of security – prophylactic stay permissible where execution not yet commenced – respondent’s factual opposition without affidavit inadmissible.
|
17 September 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or evidence for extension to present court-ordered bank guarantee; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Extension of time under Rule 10 – Good cause required; applicant must account for each day of delay and show diligence; uncorroborated allegations of bank bureaucracy insufficient; illegality of underlying decision irrelevant where application seeks time to furnish security; unexplained delay may render stay order lapsed and amount to abuse of process.
|
15 September 2025 |
|
Court granted extension under Rule 10 to comply with Rule 90(1) proviso after a struck-out notice of appeal.
* Civil procedure — Court of Appeal — Rule 90(1) proviso (request to High Court Registrar for certified copies) — time limits.
* Civil procedure — Extension of time — Rule 10 — Court's power to extend time to comply with procedural provisos.
* Procedure — Effect of striking out a notice of appeal — prior steps lapse, necessitating fresh compliance.
* Delay — accounting for delay and diligence — non-service of ruling and prompt action accepted as sufficient.
|
15 September 2025 |