|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| July 2013 |
|
|
Trial and subsequent appeal were null where the DPP failed to issue the mandatory transfer certificate; retrial ordered.
* Economic Crimes Act – jurisdiction – original jurisdiction vested in High Court – mandatory requirement of DPP’s certificate to transfer economic offences to subordinate courts; absence renders trial a nullity ab initio. * Appellate procedure – no automatic right to appeal conviction to Court of Appeal without first appealing to High Court. * Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Court of Appeal’s power to suo motu nullify, quash and set aside proceedings and order retrial where proceedings are jurisdictionally defective.
|
10 July 2013 |
|
A notice of appeal that fails to identify the High Court decision and nature of conviction is incurably defective; appeal struck out.
Criminal procedure — Notice of appeal — Rule 68(2) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — requirement to state nature of conviction/sentence and correct High Court case number — Form B substantial compliance — incurably defective notice renders appeal incompetent and to be struck out.
|
1 July 2013 |
|
A notice of appeal that fails to identify the High Court case and conviction is incurably defective.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Rule 68(2) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – mandatory requirement to state the nature of conviction/sentence and High Court cause number; defective notice citing wrong/non-existent case or omitting nature of conviction is incurably defective and renders appeal incompetent – appeal struck out; right to refile after compliance.
|
1 July 2013 |
| June 2013 |
|
|
Revision application struck out as time-barred, improperly brought under a revoked rule, not a substitute for appeal.
Revision procedure — Rule 65 Court of Appeal Rules (2009) — 60-day time limit for party-initiated revision; Revocation of 1979 Rules (GN No.36 of 2010) — citation of revoked Rule 48 incompetent; Revision not a substitute for appeal — extension of time to appeal available.
|
27 June 2013 |
|
A review application must be supported by a valid affidavit; omission of place in jurat is incurable and application struck out.
* Review jurisdiction – application for review of Court of Appeal judgment – requirements under Court of Appeal Rules (1979) Rule 3(2)(a), 45 and 46. * Affidavit formalities – jurat must state place and date – Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act, s.8 – mandatory requirement. * Defective affidavit – omission of place in jurat renders affidavit incurably defective and application incompetent; no judicial discretion to waive. * Procedural consequence – defective supporting affidavit results in striking out of application.
|
27 June 2013 |
|
An appeal instituted out of time, with untimely request for trial records, is incompetent and struck out with costs.
Appeal procedure — Time limits — Rule 90(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — Requirement to institute appeal within sixty days; exclusion of time for obtaining High Court proceedings only where application made within thirty days — Failure to comply renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out with costs.
|
27 June 2013 |
|
An out‑of‑time revision application citing a revoked rule was struck out as incompetent; appeal or extension of time is the proper remedy.
Court of Appeal – Revision procedure – Proper invocation under Rule 65 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Sixty‑day limitation for party‑initiated revision – Revocation of Rule 48 of the 1979 Rules – Revision not an alternative to appeal.
|
26 June 2013 |
|
Reported
Review application struck out for multiple procedural defects including wrong rule, defective notice and time‑bar.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – procedural compliance – correct rule for review (Rule 66) – Notice of Motion must conform to Form A and be signed (Rule 48) – grounds for review and sixty‑day time limit (Rule 66(3)) – affidavits must show place of swearing (Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act s.8) – cumulative procedural defects render application incompetent and subject to striking out.
|
26 June 2013 |
|
Review application struck out for wrong rule citation, defective notice and improperly sworn affidavits.
Court of Appeal Procedure – review application – incorrect citation of obsolete Court Rules – non-conformity with Form A and unsigned Notice – failure to state grounds and filing out of time – defective affidavits lacking place of swearing – application struck out.
|
26 June 2013 |
|
Review application struck out for wrong rule citation, non‑conforming unsigned motion, missing grounds, defective jurat and time‑bar.
Court of Appeal procedure – review application – wrong citation of Rules (1979 v 2009) – non‑compliance with Rule 48(1)/(2) (Form A and signature) – failure to state grounds and time‑bar under Rule 66(3) – defective jurat (place omitted) – application incompetent and struck out.
|
26 June 2013 |
|
|
26 June 2013 |
|
A review application supported by an affidavit whose jurat omits the place of swearing is incurably defective and struck out.
Practice and procedure – Review of Court’s own judgment – Application supported by affidavit; jurat must state place and date (Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act s.8) – Mandatory requirement – Defective jurat renders affidavit incurably defective – Application struck out; leave to file fresh application and seek extension of time.
|
26 June 2013 |
|
Review application struck out for citing repealed rules, non‑compliant notice, time‑bar and defective affidavits.
Civil procedure — Review application — citation of repealed Court of Appeal Rules (1979) instead of Rules 2009 — Notice of Motion must conform to Form A and be signed (Rule 48(2)) — grounds for review and 60-day filing requirement (Rule 66(3)) — affidavits must show place of swearing (Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act s.8) — cumulative defects render application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
25 June 2013 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for a four-year delay and sought review grounds amounting to an appeal, so the application was dismissed.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — "Good cause" requirement — Applicant's failure to attach alleged documents and to explain prolonged delay — Review proceedings — Improper to seek reconsideration of evidence amounting to an appeal — Review is not appeal.
|
24 June 2013 |
|
Appeal struck out for failure to file a notice of appeal complying with Rules 68 and 75.
* Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Compliance with Rule 68(2) and Rule 68(7) – Requirement to state nature of appeal and offence.
* Prison appellants – Rule 75/Form B/1 – deemed compliance by handing form to officer-in-charge – must include prescribed particulars.
* Defective notice – consequences – appeal not instituted and liable to be struck out.
|
24 June 2013 |
|
Unreliable visual identification and improperly rejected alibis led to quashing of murder convictions and death sentences.
Criminal law – Visual identification evidence – necessity for "watertight" conditions and corroboration; failure to name known suspects at earliest opportunity undermines credibility; alibi defence – improper rejection where identification evidence is unreliable; conviction and mandatory death sentence quashed.
|
24 June 2013 |
|
High Court erred in deciding mixed fact-law issues on written submissions without evidence; judgment quashed and retrial ordered.
Civil procedure — service levy dispute — whether mixed questions of law and fact can be determined on written submissions — application of Order XVIII and Order XIV(2) of the Civil Procedure Code — absence of evidence renders judgment nullity — retrial de novo.
|
24 June 2013 |
|
The applicant's extension application was struck out for incurable defects in the notice of motion and wrong legal citations.
* Civil procedure – Notice of motion – Compliance with Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 48 – Notice must substantially conform to Form A and be signed – Non‑compliance is incurable. * Preliminary objection – Incorrect citation of law – Appellate Jurisdiction Act contains sections (not rules); reliance on Rule 83 (civil appeals) was irrelevant to criminal application. * Application for extension of time – incompetent and struck out where notice of motion invalid.
|
21 June 2013 |
|
The appellant's civil appeal was struck out for incompetence due to defective notice, non-compliant record, and absence of leave.
* Appellate jurisdiction – s.5(1)(c) A.J.A. – requirement for leave to appeal;
* Civil procedure – Notice of Appeal – Rule 83(1) (civil) vs Rule 76 (criminal);
* Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 96 – mandatory contents of record of appeal;
* Jurisdiction – fundamental issue may be raised and decided suo motu;
* Preliminary objections – service disputes irrelevant where appeal is incompetent.
|
21 June 2013 |
|
Defective notice failing to comply with Rules 68 and 75 renders the appellant's appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Criminal procedure — Notice of appeal — Requirements under Rule 68(2) and Rule 68(7) — Form B compliance — Appellants in custody — Rule 75 and Form B/1 — Defective notice renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
21 June 2013 |
|
A CPC suit with mixed law and fact cannot be decided on written submissions without oral evidence.
Civil procedure – Suit instituted by plaint under the Civil Procedure Code – Hearing procedure under Order XVIII requires oral evidence where factual disputes exist; Order XIV, Rule 2 cannot dispense with evidence for mixed questions of law and fact; disputed mixed issues cannot be determined on written submissions alone; procedural irregularity vitiates proceedings, judgment and decree and warrants retrial de novo.
|
21 June 2013 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed due to unsafe visual identification and material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' evidence.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night; Waziri Amani requirements not met.
* Evidence – Credibility – Material contradictions among eyewitnesses and a written statement undermined prosecution case.
* Criminal procedure – First appellate court’s duty to re-evaluate evidence and credibility on rehearing.
* Evidence of persons arrested as suspects – requires caution and corroboration.
* Burden of proof – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
21 June 2013 |
|
The appellant's murder conviction was quashed due to unreliable visual identification and contradictory prosecution witnesses.
Criminal law – murder – visual identification – dangers of nighttime identification – Waziri Amani safeguards; witness credibility – contradictions and inconsistencies; witnesses arrested as suspects requiring corroboration; appellate re-evaluation on first appeal.
|
21 June 2013 |
|
Extension application struck out for incurably defective notice of motion and incorrect legal citation.
Criminal procedure — extension of time — defective notice of motion; incorrect legal citation; non‑compliance with Rule 48(1) and (3) — requirement to substantially conform to Form A and to be signed — incurable defect warrants striking out application.
|
20 June 2013 |
|
Application for extension struck out for defective notice of motion and incorrect citation of law.
Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 48(1),(3) — notice of motion must substantially follow Form A and be signed; non-compliance is incurable; incorrect citation of statute and Rules (Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rule 83 inapplicable to criminal matters) renders application defective.
|
20 June 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed where unreliable ‘last seen’ testimony and defective DNA chain of custody rendered circumstantial evidence unsafe.
* Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – sufficiency of ‘last seen’ evidence and DNA profiling – necessity for consistency and corroboration.
* Forensic evidence – DNA analysis – requirement to prove chain of custody, provenance and to tender analysed exhibits.
* Evidence – assessment of witness credibility – contradictions, implausibility and effect on probative value.
* Appeal – conviction unsafe where identity and evidential provenance are in doubt.
|
20 June 2013 |
|
A defective notice of appeal failing Rule 68 requirements renders a criminal appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Rule 68(1),(2) and 68(7) Court of Appeal Rules 2009; Form B format; notice of appeal institutes appeal; defective notice renders criminal appeal incompetent; appeal struck out.
|
20 June 2013 |
|
|
20 June 2013 |
|
A defective notice of appeal failing Rule 68 requirements renders a criminal appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Criminal appeal — Notice of appeal — Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 68(1),(2),(7) — Form B — Mandatory contents — Defective notice renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
20 June 2013 |
|
Appeal allowed where dying declaration was unreliable, uncorroborated, and conviction could not safely stand.
Criminal law – murder conviction – dying declaration (Exhibit P3) – requirement of reliability and corroboration – identification in darkness – inconsistencies between dying declaration, witness testimony, sketch plan and post‑mortem – conviction quashed.
|
19 June 2013 |
|
An appeal without a notice of appeal in the certified record is incompetent and is struck out, with leave to refile.
Criminal procedure — Notice of appeal — Rule 68(1) Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Mandatory requirement that notice be lodged and form part of certified record — Record without notice of appeal is fatally defective and appeal incompetent — Appeal struck out; liberty to refile.
|
19 June 2013 |
|
Appeal struck out because the mandatory Notice of Appeal was missing from the certified record; fresh appeal may be filed.
* Criminal appeals — Notice of Appeal — Rule 68(1) Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — mandatory requirement that a written notice be lodged with the High Court Registrar within 30 days and form part of the certified record; absence is fatal to competence of appeal.
* Procedure — certified record — Court of Appeal relies on the record as certified by High Court Registrar; documents outside certified record cannot be used to validate appeal.
* Remedy — missing Notice of Appeal — appeal struck out; appellant may file fresh appeal.
|
19 June 2013 |
|
Reported
Conviction for armed robbery quashed where identification, possession and confession evidence were unreliable and essential elements unproven.
Criminal law – armed robbery – requirement to prove violence/threat to identified victim; identification evidence – dock identification vs. identification parade; recent possession – necessity to tender and link seized property to the charge; confession of co-accused – cannot solely ground conviction (s.33(2) Evidence Act); failure of prosecution where key witnesses and exhibits absent.
|
18 June 2013 |
|
Review application dismissed for failing to invoke Rule 66(1) grounds and improperly re-arguing appeal issues.
Court of Appeal — Review jurisdiction — Rule 66(1) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Review not an appeal — Grounds for review limited (manifest error on face of record; denial of hearing; nullity; lack of jurisdiction; fraud/perjury) — Finality of judgments — Review exercised sparingly.
|
18 June 2013 |
|
A review application must plead Rule 66 grounds; it cannot be used to re‑argue appeal issues.
Criminal procedure — Review under Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 66 — Applicant must plead statutory grounds for review (manifest error, denial of hearing, nullity, want of jurisdiction, fraud/perjury) — Review not a vehicle to re‑argue matters decided on appeal — Public policy and finality of litigation.
|
18 June 2013 |
|
A defective notice of appeal that fails Rule 68(1)–(2) requirements renders a criminal appeal incompetent and is struck out.
* Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Requirement under Rule 68(1) and (2) – Notice must state nature of conviction/sentence and correct decision/case reference – Defective notice renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
18 June 2013 |
|
An appeal lacking a notice of appeal in the certified record is incompetent and must be struck out.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Rule 68(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Notice of Appeal is mandatory and must be lodged within 30 days at the High Court; must form part of the certified record; omission renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; copy outside certified record is not sufficient.
|
18 June 2013 |
|
Review application dismissed for failing to plead Rule 66(1) grounds and improperly re-arguing appeal issues.
* Criminal procedure – Review – Application under Rule 66(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – grounds required for review.
* Review v Appeal – review not to be used to re-argue appeal grounds; review powers are limited and sparingly exercised.
* Procedural compliance – failure to specify grounds under Rule 66(3) is fatal.
* Finality of judgments – public policy favours certainty and limited scope of review.
|
14 June 2013 |
|
Applicant failed to account for delay and did not show the intended review relied on Rule 66(1) grounds; application dismissed.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to apply for review – applicant must account for delay and show intended review relies on Rule 66(1) grounds; defective notice may be cured by affidavit if grounds disclosed; prisoner’s ignorance is not an inevitable excuse for unexplained delay.
|
14 June 2013 |
|
Extension refused: applicant failed to show good cause or arguable Rule 66(1) grounds for a seven‑year delayed review.
• Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — Good cause requires inquiry into length and reason for delay, dilatory conduct, arguable case and prejudice. • Review — Court may only review its judgment on Rule 66(1) grounds (manifest error on face of record, denial of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, fraud/perjury). • Finality/public interest — Long unexplained delays militate against reopening final judgments.
|
14 June 2013 |
|
Seven-year unexplained delay and absence of arguable review grounds justified refusal to extend time to apply for review.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Application under Rule 10 – "Good cause" assessed by length of delay, reason, arguable case and prejudice/public interest.
* Review procedure – Rule 66(1) – Review limited to manifest error on record, denial of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, or judgment procured by fraud/perjury.
* Delay – Inordinate and unexplained delay attributable to applicant's dilatory conduct disentitles him to extension.
|
14 June 2013 |
|
Extension to seek review refused for failure to show good cause and to invoke Rule 66 review grounds.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 – applicant must show good cause; * Review jurisdiction – Rule 66(1) – review of Court of Appeal judgments is exceptional and limited to five grounds (manifest error on face of record; denial of hearing; nullity; lack of jurisdiction; judgment procured by fraud/perjury); * Civil procedure – Rule 48(1) – notice of motion must state grounds and affidavit may cure defects; * Abuse of process – revision filed out of time and misconceived; * Finality of litigation – public policy requires sparing use of review.
|
13 June 2013 |
|
Extension to apply for review refused where applicant failed to show good cause and Rule 66(1) grounds.
Civil procedure — Extension of time to seek review of Court of Appeal judgment; Rule 10, Rule 48(1), Rule 66(1) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules — review jurisdiction exceptional and limited to five grounds; applicant must show good cause and that intended review would be based on Rule 66(1) grounds; finality of litigation.
|
13 June 2013 |
|
An applicant for extension to file a review must account for delay and show the intended review satisfies Rule 66(1) grounds.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time – application for extension to file application for review – applicant must account for delay and show intended review fits Rule 66(1) grounds.
* Civil procedure – notice of motion defects – omission of grounds may be cured by supporting affidavit but Rule 48(1)&(2) requirements are vital.
* Prisoner litigant – ignorance of law may justify limited initial delay but does not excuse prolonged unexplained delay.
* Review jurisdiction – exceptional remedy; Court will require demonstration that intended review relies on Rule 66(1) grounds.
|
13 June 2013 |
|
An extension under section 11 must be sought first in the High Court; unsigned, blank Notices to the Court of Appeal are incompetent.
Appellate jurisdiction – section 11 AJA – extension of time must be sought first in High Court; Court of Appeal only entertains a "second bite" after High Court refusal; Court of Appeal Rules – notices must be signed, dated, refer to the decision and cite the enabling provision; omission to cite the enabling statute is fatal.
|
13 June 2013 |
|
Seven-year unexplained delay and absence of arguable Rule 66(1) grounds warranted dismissal of extension application.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirement of "good cause" – factors: length and cause of delay, dilatory conduct, existence of arguable case, prejudice/public interest.
* Criminal appeals – Review of Court of Appeal judgment – Rule 66(1) grounds required for review (manifest error on face of record, deprivation of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, illegality, fraud or perjury).
* Public policy – finality of litigation as factor against granting extension where delay is inordinate and unexplained.
|
13 June 2013 |
|
Extension to seek review refused for unexplained delay, defective notice, and failure to show prima facie Rule 66 grounds.
Court of Appeal – extension of time to apply for review – Rule 10 and Rule 66(1)&(3) – review jurisdiction exceptional and limited – notice of motion must state grounds (Rule 48(1)) – applicant must show good cause and prima facie Rule 66 grounds – inordinate delay and prior misconceived application – application dismissed.
|
12 June 2013 |
|
An application for extension of time must first be made to the High Court and comply with Court of Appeal Rules; defective notices are struck out.
Court of Appeal procedure – extension of time – section 11 Appellate Jurisdiction Act requires initial application to High Court; procedural compliance with Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 48, Rule 10) mandatory; omission to cite enabling provision fatal – defective Notices of Motion struck out.
|
12 June 2013 |
|
A conviction must be entered before sentence; failure to do so is fatal and warrants quashing and remitting the record.
Criminal procedure — mandatory entry of conviction before sentence (s.235(1) Criminal Procedure Act) — sentencing without conviction fatal — appellate revisional powers (s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act) — quash and remit for proper judgment.
|
12 June 2013 |
|
Sentence without conviction is a fatal irregularity; identification and recent-possession evidence were inadequate, so convictions were quashed.
Criminal procedure – Requirement to enter conviction before sentence (s.235(1) CPA) – Visual identification – reliability and necessary particulars (Waziri Amani) – Doctrine of recent possession – proof of recovery and identification – Judgment nullity – Revisional powers (s.4(2) AJA).
|
12 June 2013 |