|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 2001 |
|
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure - Affidavits - Pleading by affidavits - Whether a
rejoinder to a Reply to a Counter Affidavit is permissible
Appeal - Locus standi in appeals - Whether a person who was not involved in
original proceedings has capacity to bring appeal - Rule 76(1) of the.
Court ofAppeal Rules 1979.
Court ofAppeal - Court ofAppeal Rules 1979 - Notice ofpreliminary objection
-Whether omission to cite provision under which the objection is brought -
is fatal.
Natural Justice - Right to be heard - Right to land revoked without a hearing -
Decision reached without regard to natural justice.
Constitutional Law - Basic Rights - Basic rights guaranteed protection by the
Constitution -Right to befully heard enshrined in the Constitution -Article
13(6)(a) of the Constitution of Tanzania.
Constitutional Law - Separation ofpowers andfunctions - Power to grant and
revoke rights to land - High Court makes orders granting and revoking
rights of occupancy - High Court infringing doctrine ofseparation of
powers by usurping powers of the executive. |
9 August 2001 |
|
Appellant lacked standing; High Court’s revocation of occupancy void for breach of natural justice and separation of powers.
Land law – double allocation of land – registration and certificates of title – locus standi to appeal – party status required to appeal – procedural objections – preliminary objection under Rule 100 – natural justice – audi alteram partem – separation of powers – courts cannot exercise executive powers to grant or revoke rights of occupancy – revisional jurisdiction suo motu – expunging improperly admitted affidavits – remittal for fresh hearing.
|
9 August 2001 |
|
Reported
Appellant lacked locus to appeal; High Court violated natural justice and exceeded executive powers, prompting appellate revision.
Land law – double allocation and conflicting certificates of occupancy; procedural fairness – joinder of parties and right to be heard (audi alteram partem; Constitution Article 13(6)(a)); separation of powers – judicial usurpation of executive functions to revoke/grant rights of occupancy; appellate procedure – locus standi to appeal; Court of Appeal’s suo motu revisional powers to remedy procedural and substantive injustice.
|
9 August 2001 |
| April 2001 |
|
|
Appellants' convictions quashed where evidence showed negligence and no agreement, corroboration, or proof matching the charge.
* Criminal law – Conspiracy (s.384 Penal Code) – proof requires evidence of agreement between parties; coincidence and negligence insufficient. * Criminal law – Aiding prisoner to escape (s.117 Penal Code) – requires conscious act or intent to facilitate escape; negligence does not suffice. * Evidence – Accomplice testimony requires corroboration. * Criminal procedure – Charge must correspond to evidence; variance invalidates conviction.
|
2 April 2001 |
|
Reported
High Court's enhancement of sentence in accused's absence violated mandatory right to be heard; conviction quashed for procedural and evidential defects.
* Criminal procedure – failure to give accused opportunity to be heard before substituting conviction or enhancing sentence – mandatory requirement of section 29(a)(i), Magistrates' Courts Act 1984 – proceedings rendered nullity.
* Criminal evidence – identification – contradictions between complainant and investigating officer/village chairman as to identifying marks – insufficiency to prove ownership beyond reasonable doubt.
* Appellate jurisdiction – court may invoke suo motu revision under section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, to correct irregularities affecting a non-appealing co-accused.
|
2 April 2001 |
(From the conviction and sentence ofthe High Court ofTanzania at Mbeya, Mchome, J. dated 5 April 1994, in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1994) Criminal Practice and Procedure - Right ofthe accused to be heard - Summons returned unserved — Court proceeds to hear the appeal in the absence of the accused/respondents - Whether proceedings were irregular - Section 34(4) ofthe Magistrates' Courts Act 1984. Criminal Practice and Procedure — Sentencing — Enhancement ofsentence - Sentence enhanced in the absence of the accused/respondents - Whether proceedings rendered a nullity - Section 29(a)(i) ofthe Magistrates ’ Courts ; Act 1984. |
2 April 2001 |
|
Court corrected High Court's misidentification and transposed facts by revising the judgment to record the appellant's success.
* Civil procedure – Revision – Court may invoke revisional jurisdiction to correct non-appealable errors in High Court judgments. * Civil procedure – Misidentification of parties and advocates and transposition of proved facts – material error justifying correction. * Appellate Jurisdiction Act – section 4(3) – power to revise judgments not appealable. * Costs – where judicial error causes revision, each party to bear own costs.
|
2 April 2001 |
| March 2001 |
|
(From the decision ofthe High Court of Tanzania, Mbeya, Wambura, PRM Exercising Extended Jurisdiction) Criminal Practice and Procedure - Revision - Power ofrevision to rectify errors - Section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979 as amended by the Appellate Jurisdiction (Amendment) Act 1993. Criminal Practice and Procedure - Extendedjurisdiction - Appeals in the High Court transferred to Court ofResident Magistrate with extendedjurisdiction, - Appeals to be registered afresh in the Court of Resident Magistrate - Section 45(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1984 as amended by Act Number 2 of 1996. |
30 March 2001 |
|
Reported
Proceedings heard by a Resident Magistrate in a High Court file without transfer are a nullity and must be quashed.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Revision under section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act – power to call and examine High Court records for correctness and regularity. * Magistrates' Courts – Extended jurisdiction – where the High Court directs an appeal to be heard by a Resident Magistrate with extended jurisdiction the appeal must be transferred to and titled in the Resident Magistrate's Court (section 45(2) MCA). * Procedural irregularity – proceedings heard in wrong forum are a nullity.
|
30 March 2001 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Review - Application for review before Court
of Appeal - Period of limitation for such application. ■'
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Review - Application for review - Delay in
lodging application - Grounds for delay - Whether laxity and incompetence
of advocate is an excuse for delay.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Review -Application for review - Preliminary
objection to review - Application out of time and circumstances relied
upon not disclosed.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Limitation - Whether the Court is subject to
The Law of Limitation Act 1971 - Whether rules of the Court prescribe a
limitation period for review. |
30 March 2001 |
|
Reported
A review application was time‑barred and failed to disclose proper grounds, so it was struck out as an impermissible second appeal.
Court of Appeal — review of its own decisions — inherent power subject to time limitation; sixty‑day period adopted by analogy; notice of motion must disclose grounds or circumstances; review categories (manifest error, denial of hearing, fraud); applications amounting to a 'second bite' at appeal are impermissible. |
30 March 2001 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed for lack of notice of appeal and required High Court certification for a third appeal.
Appellate procedure — Leave to appeal — Notice of intention to appeal required — Third appeal — Certification of point of law by High Court under s.5(2)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — No substitution of certification by Court of Appeal — Procedural defect fatal.
|
30 March 2001 |