|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2006 |
|
|
Nighttime visual identification was unreliable; contradictions and lack of explanation made the conviction unsafe, so it was quashed.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night requires explanation of source/quality of light and must be 'water tight'. * Criminal procedure – Second appeal – Interference with concurrent findings justified where there are misdirections or compelling reasons. * Evidence – Contradictory eyewitness accounts can render identification unreliable. * Caution statements by co-accused do not cure defective primary identification evidence.
|
4 October 2006 |
| September 2006 |
|
|
Application for leave struck out because notice of motion cited irrelevant statute and failed to specify a rule.
Court of Appeal practice — competence of notice of motion — necessity to cite specific enabling provision; Law of Limitation Act s.14 not applicable to appeals to Court of Appeal in this context; failure to cite proper rule renders application incompetent.
|
29 September 2006 |
| August 2006 |
|
|
Identification uncertainties, testimonial discrepancies and investigative delays rendered the murder convictions unsafe, leading to acquittal.
Criminal law – Identification evidence at night – Reliability affected by lighting, sleep and stress; discrepancies in testimony; failure to disclose suspects promptly and delayed arrests; application of Waziri Amani guidelines on identity evaluation.
|
31 August 2006 |
(From the judgment ofthe High Court of Tanzania at Songea, Manento, J., dated 28 October 2003, in Criminal Sessions Case number 40 of 2001) ® Criminal Practice and Procedure — Burden of Proof- Appellants convicted of murder and manslaughter — No prosecution -witness testified to have seen the appellants kill the deceased — Witnesses only saw the appellants with the deceased's body - Whether the prosecution's case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal Practice and Procedure — Circumstantial evidence — Appellants seen with the dead body - Whether this was enough evidence to ground a conviction. Criminal Practice and Procedure - Appellants present at the scene ofthe killing - Appellants were the last persons to be seen with the deceased - Whether sustainable grounds to link appellants with the killing of the deceased. Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing -Appellants had a common intention of assaulting the deceased, but were sentenced differently - Whether sentencing was proper |
31 August 2006 |
|
Defective charge omitting essential element and unreliable victim evidence vitiated attempted rape conviction.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Attempted rape – charge must disclose essential elements (eg. 'threatening' under s132(2)(a)); defective charge incurable – Criminal Procedure Act; Evidence – victim's uncorroborated testimony under s127(7) assessed for credibility; Second appeal – interference justified where misdirection/defect vitiates conviction.
|
31 August 2006 |
|
A charge of attempted rape must allege the essential element of 'threatening'; omission renders conviction unsafe.
Criminal law — Attempted rape — Essential elements — Particulars must allege 'threatening' where reliance is on s.132(2)(a); defective particulars that omit essential ingredient are not cured by s.388(1). Evidence — Sexual offences — s.127(7) Evidence Act (as amended) allows conviction on uncorroborated victim evidence only if court records reasons and is satisfied of truthfulness; credibility must be assessed. Appeals — Second appeal — Court may interfere with concurrent findings of fact where there are misdirections or non-directions on the evidence.
|
31 August 2006 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove appellants caused death; mere presence and suspicion insufficient.
Criminal law – burden of proof – proof beyond reasonable doubt; presence with corpse insufficient to infer guilt; suspicion not enough for conviction; compliance with s.192(3) Criminal Procedure Act mandatory; common intention — equal liability and consistent sentencing; excessive sentence review.
|
31 August 2006 |
|
An appeal from a Primary Court without a High Court certificate of a point of law is incompetent and struck out.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal to Court of Appeal from Primary Court – requirement of High Court certificate that a point of law is involved (s.6(7)(b) Appellate Jurisdiction Act).
* Civil/criminal appeals – necessity of clear, accurate record of appeal and proper certification by Registrar.
* Jurisdiction – no entitlement to appeal via District to High Court from Primary Court without statutory certification.
|
31 August 2006 |
|
A Primary Court appeal without High Court certification of a point of law is incompetent; applicant’s appeal struck out.
Appellate jurisdiction — Appeals from Primary Court criminal proceedings — s.6(7)(b) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — necessity of High Court certificate that a point of law is involved; competence of appeal; adequacy and accuracy of record of appeal and Registrar’s certification.
|
31 August 2006 |
|
Application to Court of Appeal struck out for procedural defects and failure to follow section 5(2)(c) AJ Act 1979, costs to respondent.
* Civil procedure – Appeal procedure – Requirement to follow High Court route and obtain certificate under section 5(2)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979 where appeal originates in Primary Court.
* Civil procedure – Competence of Notice of Motion – necessity to cite enabling legal provision.
* Civil procedure – Limitation – inapplicability of Law of Limitation Act, 1971 to proceedings before this Court.
* Civil practice – Extension of time – requirement for particularity and proper forum before approaching Court of Appeal.
|
29 August 2006 |
|
Failure to obtain required certificate and file memorandum for a Primary Court appeal warrants striking out for failure to prosecute.
* Civil procedure – Appeal from Primary Court – requirement for certificate on a point of law under section 5(2)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act. * Court of Appeal – Rule 82 – striking out Notice of Appeal for failure to take necessary steps to prosecute. * Court Rules – Rule 83(1) – obligation to lodge memorandum of appeal.
|
29 August 2006 |
|
Reported
(From the Judgment of the High Courtof Tanzaniaa at Songea, Manento, J., dated 4 March 2003, in Criminal Sessions Case number of 200101) Criminal Law - Attempted rape - Sentence for attempted rape - Appropriate sentence to be imposed where the accused aged 16 yearp — sections p 131(2)(a) and 132(1) ofthe Penal Code, Chapterl6. Statute — Interpretation Statutes — Use of the word “shall” in a statutory provision - Whether the use of the word “shall” always means that the provision is mandatory - section 3(5) of the Children and Young Persons G Act, Chapter 13. Criminal Practice and Procedure — Trial — Juvenile trial - Juvenile trial not held in camera - Whether the trial is a nullity -section 3(5) of the Children and Young Persons Act, Chapter 13. |
21 August 2006 |
|
Convictions cannot rest on suspicion or mere presence with a corpse; prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law — murder/manslaughter — burden of proof — circumstantial evidence — mere presence with a corpse insufficient — "last seen alive" principle inapplicable where accused seen after death — preliminary hearing memorandum — s.192(3) Criminal Procedure Act — cautioned and extra‑judicial statements — common intention — sentencing.
|
21 August 2006 |
|
Conviction unsafe where sole eyewitness evidence was contradictory and the defence evidence and inconsistencies were not properly considered.
Criminal law – murder – conviction based on sole eyewitness evidence – contradictions in eyewitness testimony – duty to consider defence evidence – proof beyond reasonable doubt – post‑mortem findings inconsistent with eyewitness account – possibility of other perpetrators.
|
21 August 2006 |
From the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Mbinga, Manento, J., dated 3 November 2003 in Criminal Sessions Case number 3 of 2002. Evidence - Veracity of evidence - Prosecution key witness making contradictions in his evidence - Whether a Court may entera conviction for murder on the basis of such witness evidence. |
21 August 2006 |
(From the judgment of the High Courtof Tanzaniaa as Songea, Mwipopo, L.dated 13 April 1999, in Criminal Appeal number 23of 19800) Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing - Offence committed before the enactment of the Sexual Offences (Special Provisions) Act 1998 — Whether the provisions of the Act were applicable in sentencing the appellant. Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing - Variation of sentence by appellate Court -Circumstances under which an appellate Court may interfere with the sentence of the Trial Court. |
21 August 2006 |
|
Reported
Conviction for rape upheld on credible victim testimony; High Court’s sentence enhancement and corporal punishment quashed, original sentence restored.
* Criminal law – Rape – Victim’s testimony and corroboration sufficient to establish penetration and lack of consent; medical evidence not essential. * Criminal procedure – Accused’s silence at trial does not amount to admission. * Criminal procedure – Court’s power to summon a doctor under s.240(3) requires statutory preconditions. * Appeal – Appellate interference with sentencing limited to cases of illegality, manifest inadequacy/excess or wrong principle. * Jurisdiction – High Court proceedings addressed to Court of Appeal nullified for want of jurisdiction.
|
21 August 2006 |
| March 2006 |
|
|
|
27 March 2006 |