|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 1999 |
|
|
The appellant did not abandon occupied land; village's reallocation was irregular and was quashed.
* Land law — Occupation and abandonment — Notice to village leadership and leaving land under care does not amount to abandonment.
* Customary/village allocation — Reallocation of land already occupied and cultivated requires strong justification; unauthorized encroachment by village authorities is irregular.
* Civil procedure — Suit filed in wrong name but clearly for village’s benefit is curable under s.37(2) Magistrate’s Court Act 1984.
* Appellate review — District court erred in subdividing a single occupied parcel without evidential basis.
|
24 September 1999 |
| July 1999 |
|
|
Reported
Civil practice and procedure — Natural justice — Leave co defendant not given opportunity to cross examine witnesses and to defend himself against the suit - A denial of justice.
Civil practice andprocedure — Appeals - Leave to appeal to the Court ofAppeal - Leave granted by the High Court outside prescribed period - Rule 43 (a) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 1979.
Court ofAppeal — Revisional powers - Serious irregularities in the three courts below — Section 4(3) ofthe Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979 as amended by Appellate Jurisdiction (Amendment) Act 1993. |
6 July 1999 |
| June 1999 |
|
|
Appeals dismissed: eyewitness description and conduct evidence sufficiently proved guilt; exculpatory statements did not negate involvement.
* Criminal law – Murder – sufficiency of evidence – identification by description and conduct of accused as corroborative elements.
* Evidence – Exculpatory statements vs confession – an exculpatory admission does not automatically exculpate or cannot be treated as a confession to a different offence.
* Evidence – Circumstantial and conduct evidence (receiving money, hiding, abandoning business) can support inference of guilt.
* Procedure – No requirement of scientific identification parade where eyewitness description and corroborating facts are reliable.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
Reported
Non-compliance with s.192(3) CPA rendered the appellant’s statements inadmissible and required a retrial.
Criminal procedure — Section 192(3) Criminal Procedure Act — Memorandum of Undisputed Matters must be read and explained to accused; Evidence — admissibility of extra-judicial and cautioned statements — need for proper proof/recorder under s.34B(2) Evidence Act; Trial irregularities — exclusion of improperly proved statements may undermine conviction; Remedy — retrial ordered where procedural non-compliance vitiates conviction.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Preliminary hearing - Section 192(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985 — Contents of Memorandum of Matters agreed not read over and explained to accused - Effect thereof- Section 192(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985.
Criminal Practice and Procedure — Preliminary hearing - Contents of Memorandum of Matters agreed — Cautioned and extra-judicial statements made and admitted by accused must be incorporated - Section 192(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985. |
10 June 1999 |
|
Appellant’s mob-justice defence rejected; malice inferred from weapon, force and repeated blows, appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Murder – Inference of malice aforethought from weapon, number and location of blows, force used and fatal outcome. * Evidence – Credibility of eyewitnesses and corroboration by post-mortem findings. * Defence of mob justice – inconsistent with medical and eye-witness evidence and thus rightly rejected.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
The appellant's mob‑justice defence was rejected; malice aforethought established and murder conviction upheld.
* Criminal law – Murder – Proof of malice aforethought: factors for inferring intent include size/type of weapon, force used, number and location of blows, and nature of injuries; * Evidence – Credibility of eyewitnesses and corroboration by post‑mortem findings; * Defence of 'mob justice' – medical and testimonial evidence may refute claim that fatal injuries were caused by a crowd.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
Conviction quashed for non‑compliance with s.192 and inadmissible statements; retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure — s.192 preliminary hearing — Memorandum of Undisputed Matters must be read and explained to accused; Evidence — admissibility and proof of extra‑judicial and cautioned statements (Evidence Act s.34B); retrial required where procedural irregularity renders conviction unsafe; sufficiency of evidence where accused pleads self‑defence.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
Procedural breach in admitting a cautioned statement was harmless where other voluntary confessions and corroboration proved guilt.
Criminal law – Admissibility and voluntariness of cautioned and extra‑judicial statements – Procedure under Kinyori v Maruditu regarding assessors – Corroboration of confessions – Harmless error where alternative admissible confessions and independent corroboration exist.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
Appeal allowed: unsafe identification and unreliable dying declaration rendered murder convictions and death sentences unsustainable.
* Criminal law – Evidence – Identification: reliability of eyewitness identification, need for corroboration and identification parade where appropriate. * Criminal law – Evidence: admissibility and weight of dying declaration; circumstances assuring accuracy. * Criminal procedure – Prosecution burden: failure to call material witnesses and consequences for safety of conviction. * Appellate review – Trial judge’s directions and weight accorded to weak or inconsistent evidence.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
The appellant's murder conviction upheld: eyewitness credible, alibi rejected, and presumption of death inapplicable.
Criminal law – Murder – Eyewitness credibility where witness previously jointly charged and later discharged under s.91 – Not automatically an accomplice; corroboration required. Evidence – Corroboration by post‑offence conduct (sudden unexplained wealth). Alibi – Rejection where contradicted by other witnesses and events. Presumption of death (s.7 Evidence Act) – Inapplicable where death is by witnessed violent disposal into a river.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
Insanity plea failed where inconsistent statements and deliberate conduct showed guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Insanity defence – burden and proof – mental state at time of offence versus mental state at time of examination.
* Evidence – inconsistencies in accused’s statements – extra-judicial, cautioned and sworn statements evaluated for intent and premeditation.
* Procedure – admissibility and weight of medical report produced on appeal though not tendered at trial (s.220(2) CPA).
|
10 June 1999 |
|
Appeal dismissed: defence failed to prove insanity and provocation was not established, conviction and death sentence affirmed.
Criminal law – Insanity defence – burden on defence to prove lack of criminal responsibility; psychiatric evidence and post‑offence conduct as indicators of capacity – Provocation – objective test; not established where particulars of provoking conduct/words absent.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
Reported
A charge alleging receipt of goods bought with stolen money disclosed no offence; proceedings based on it were void.
Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – s.311(1) Penal Code – property must itself be feloniously stolen; money used to buy goods does not make goods ‘feloniously stolen’. Criminal procedure – Misconceived charge – s.129 Criminal Procedure Act – refusal to admit non‑charge. Revisional jurisdiction – nullity of proceedings founded on no offence; quashing of restitution order under s.353(3) CPA.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Restitution - Restitution of property in revisional proceedings - Section 353(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Charges - Charge not disclosing any offence - Whether proper to put charge to the accused- Section 129 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Revision - Power of Court to revise irregular proceedings - Section 4(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979.
|
10 June 1999 |
|
Reported
Appellant's murder conviction upheld based on postmortem injuries and recent possession of the deceased's clothes under s.122 Evidence Act.
Criminal law – Murder – Postmortem evidence excluding drowning – Recent possession presumption under s.122 Evidence Act – Identification of deceased’s property – Credibility of witnesses.
|
10 June 1999 |