Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

Court of Appeal of Tanzania

This is the highest level in the justice delivery system in Tanzania. The Court of Appeal draws its mandate from Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The Court hears appeals  on both point of law and facts for cases originating from the High Court of Tanzania and Magistrates with extended jurisdiction in exercise of their original jurisdiction or appellate and revisional jurisdiction over matters originating in the District Land and Housing Tribunals, District Courts and Courts of Resident Magistrate. The Court also hears similar appeals  from quasi judicial bodies of status equivalent to that of the High Court. It  further hears appeals  on point of law against the decision of the High Court in  matters originating from Primary Courts. The Court of Appeal also exercises jurisdiction on appeals originating from the High Court of Zanzibar except for constitutional issues arising from the interpretation of the Constitution of Zanzibar and matters arising from the Kadhi Court.

Physical address
26 Kivukoni Road Building P.O. Box 9004, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Visit website
https://jmap.judiciary.go.tz/jmap/jmap-coa
6 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
6 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
May 2005
Daudi Mapunda and Another vs Republic (Consolidated Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2000; Consolidated Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2000) [2005] TZCA 121 (5 May 2005)
Failure to take an accused's plea makes the trial a nullity; separate identification evidence was upheld and that appeal dismissed.
* Criminal procedure – Arraignment and plea – section 228 CPA – requirement to state charge to accused in person and take plea; non-compliance renders trial a nullity. * Evidence – Identification – single-witness identification in daylight, close proximity and prior acquaintance can be watertight. * Evidential issues not raised at trial or on first appeal (e.g., accomplice character) generally cannot be considered for the first time on final appeal.
 5 May 2005
Duda Ndugali vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2004) [2005] TZCA 144 (5 May 2005)
Identification evidence upheld and mandatory minimum sentence increased to thirty years.
* Criminal law – Rape – Visual identification – Complainant and eyewitness known to accused; duration of assault eliminating mistaken identity. * Criminal procedure – Appellate restraint – concurrent findings of fact not to be disturbed unless perverse. * Sentencing – Mandatory minimum sentences under Sexual Offences Special Provisions Act No. 4 of 1998 – substitution of an unlawful sentence.
 5 May 2005
Juma S. Busiyah vs The Zonal Manager (South) Tanzania Post Corporation (Civil Application No. MBY 8 of 2004) [2005] TZCA 224 (4 May 2005)
An affidavit containing legal argument instead of facts renders the applicant's application incurably defective and liable to be struck out.
Civil procedure — Affidavits must be confined to facts and not legal argument — Order XIX Rules 1 and 3, Civil Procedure Code — Ex parte Matovu applied — Affidavit containing legal conclusions can be incurably defective and render an application incompetent.
 4 May 2005
Prisca Magaga vs Alphonsina Sanga (Civil Application No. MBY 6 of 2004) [2005] TZCA 223 (2 May 2005)
Leave to appeal must be sought within 14 days; time on review does not extend limitation for leave.
Appellate procedure — leave to appeal to Court of Appeal — Rule 43(a) fourteen-day limit; Limitation — s.21 Law of Limitation Act inapplicable to time spent on review of same matter; Civil Procedure — Order 42 Rule 7, refusal of review not appealable; procedural delay and consequences.
 2 May 2005
Prisca Magaga vs Alphonsina Sanga (Civil Application No. Mby 6 of 2004) [2005] TZCA 248 (2 May 2005)
Leave to appeal must be sought within 14 days; time in review does not extend the limitation under section 21.
Court of Appeal – Civil procedure – Leave to appeal – Rule 43(a) requiring leave application within fourteen days; Time limitation – Law of Limitation Act s.21(1) inapplicable to time spent in review of same matter; Review proceedings – Order 42 Rule 7: rejection of review is not appealable; Procedural diligence required when choosing between review and appeal.
 2 May 2005
January 2005
Nathaniel Alphonce Mapunda and Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2005) [2005] TZCA 111 (1 January 2005)
Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; presence with a dead body after death insufficient for conviction.
Criminal law — burden of proof; circumstantial evidence — necessity to prove facts for inference beyond reasonable doubt; presence with dead body not equivalent to last seen alive; common intention — liability of participants; mandatory compliance with s.192(3) Criminal Procedure Act regarding memorandum at preliminary hearing.
 1 January 2005