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
8 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
8 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
September 2009
Eliya Anderson vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 168 (16 September 2009)
The applicant's challenges to identification and PF3 non‑compliance fail; conviction and sentence are affirmed.
* Criminal law – Rape – identification – adequacy of identification at night where there was moonlight, victim and eyewitnesses known the accused, and accused caught in the act with clothing left at scene. * Criminal procedure – Section 240(3) CPA – PF3/medical report – duty to inform accused of right to summon examining doctor; non‑compliance may be harmless where the fact of rape is undisputed and other evidence is overwhelming. * Evidence – child witness competency and corroboration; ownership of clothes as corroborative physical evidence.
 16 September 2009
Laureno Mseya vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 430 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 50 (16 September 2009)
Reported
Open‑court trial for a child rape case did not vitiate proceedings absent shown prejudice; conviction and statutory sentence upheld.
* Criminal law – Sexual offences – Requirement for in camera proceedings under section 186(3) CPA (SOSPA) – Non‑compliance curable under section 388 if no prejudice. * Evidence – Child witness testimony and section 127(2) TEA – voir dire and evaluation of credibility. * Evidence – Admissibility of cautioned/confessional statements. * Criminal procedure – Judicial interventions by magistrates – permitting clarification without constituting bias. * Appellate law – Scope of second appeal limited to points of law absent material misdirections on evidence.
 16 September 2009
Laureno Mseya vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 167 (16 September 2009)
Non‑compliance with in‑camera rule did not vitiate rape conviction absent a shown failure of justice.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Trial in camera requirement (s.186(3) CPA) – Non‑compliance curable under s.388 CPA absent failure of justice; Evidence – Child witnesses – Voir dire requirement (s.127(2) TEA) and admissibility; Confessions/cautioned statements – challenges on admission; Fair trial – judicial interventions and impartiality; Appellate review – limits of second appeal on questions of fact.
 16 September 2009
Obadia Kijalo vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 172 (11 September 2009)
Whether the applicant’s death sentence is constitutional given irreversibility, risk of error, and limited appellate review.
* Criminal law – Murder – Conviction based on admissions of participation and conduct indicating malice aforethought. * Death penalty – Constitutionality – Whether capital punishment is inherently inhuman and degrading and conflicts with Article 13(6)(c) and (d). * Sentencing – Irreversibility and risk of judicial error; limited appellate review for murder convictions; life imprisonment as alternative.
 11 September 2009
Robertaron vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 68 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 59 (9 September 2009)
Reported
Twenty-year sentence for killing spouse upheld: mitigating factors (adultery, first offender, remand) insufficient to show manifest excess.
* Criminal law – Sentencing principles – seriousness of offence, victim impact and factors leading to the offence (provocation/heat of passion). * Criminal law – Mitigation – whether adultery and related circumstances amount to sufficient mitigation. * Appellate review – interference with sentence only where wrong principle applied, material factor overlooked, or sentence manifestly excessive. * Manslaughter – sentence commensurate with brutality of killing.
 9 September 2009
Emmanuel Mdendemi & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 86 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 38 (8 September 2009)
Reported
The appellants' convictions were quashed because identification was unreliable and cautioned statements improperly admitted.
* Criminal law – Visual identification – evidence must be ‘‘watertight’’; factors: time observed, distance, lighting, prior acquaintance, obstructions. * Criminal law – Voice identification – inherently weak and requires caution. * Evidence – Cautioned/confession statements – accused must be informed of rights and allowed to object; failure is a fundamental irregularity. * Standard of proof – convictions unsafe where identification and confession evidence are unreliable.
 8 September 2009
Robert Aron vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2007) [2009] TZCA 173 (8 September 2009)
A 20-year sentence for manslaughter after finding a spouse in adultery was not manifestly excessive.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter by spouse after discovering adultery – Whether 20-year term is manifestly excessive – Mitigation (provocation, first offender, remand, dependants) – Appellate restraint where trial court did not act on wrong principle or impose manifestly excessive sentence – Improper reliance on irrelevant moral observations.
 8 September 2009
January 2009
Abenes Witson vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2009) [2009] TZCA 198 (1 January 2009)
Where a child-victim fails a voir dire and PF3’s author was not summoned under section 240(3), conviction set aside and retrial ordered.
Criminal law – rape – element of penetration under section 130(4) Penal Code – medical report (PF3) and section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – duty to summon author and inform accused of right to require attendance – child witness failing voir dire (section 127(2) Evidence Act) – retrial permitted where original trial defective; revisional powers.
 1 January 2009