|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2014 |
|
|
Wrong citation of procedural rule renders an application incompetent; single-Judge decisions require reference under Rule 62(1)(a).
* Criminal procedure – challenge to single Judge's decision – must be by reference under Rule 62(1)(a), not by review under Rule 66(1).
* Civil/criminal procedure – wrong citation or omission of applicable rule renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
* Appellate jurisdiction – revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA to correct High Court's erroneous order when functus officio.
* Extension of time – after revision, applicant may apply to Court of Appeal for extension to file notice of appeal.
|
25 November 2014 |
| October 2014 |
|
|
Pre‑2007 Employment Act governs repatriation subsistence; awarded 257 days at Tshs 15,000/day (total Tshs 11,565,000).
Employment law – non‑retrospectivity – Employment Act (Cap 366 R.E.2002) applicable to cause of action in 2004; Repatriation/subsistence allowance – entitlement until provision of transport; Rate determination – prevailing local rate Tshs 15,000/day (children half rate); Duty to mitigate – employee’s postponement bars further subsistence; General damages – unpleaded claims not entertained on appeal.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
Applicant entitled to subsistence to date transport provided (13/9/2004) at proven rates; other claims dismissed.
Employment law – applicable statute for 2004 cause of action – Employment Act (Cap. 366 R.E. 2002) applies; Subsistence/repatriation allowance – entitlement only until employer provided transport; delay caused by employee bars further subsistence (s.59(4)); Rate of allowance – claimant must prove higher rate; burden of proof and mitigation of damages; Appellate jurisdiction – cannot award fresh general damages not pleaded or decided at trial.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
Court will not disturb a seven-year sentence where trial judge properly considered mitigation and exercised discretion lawfully.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Attempted murder – Appellate interference limited to cases of misdirection, wrong principle, manifest excess or illegality; mitigation: guilty plea, provocation, first offender status, dependants, community service report; victim presence at sentencing.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
An equivocal plea of guilty cannot sustain a conviction and must be quashed for a fresh plea.
Criminal law – plea of guilty – equivocal plea; manslaughter defined as death by unlawful act or omission (culpable negligence); plea must be unequivocal before conviction; where plea is ambiguous conviction may be quashed and case remitted for fresh plea.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
A guilty plea must be unequivocal; an equivocal plea invalidates the conviction and requires remittal for fresh plea and trial.
* Criminal law – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Whether plea was unequivocal or equivocal – When a plea on its face permits appellate challenge. * Criminal procedure – Conviction on accused’s own plea – Grounds for appeal where plea is ambiguous, imperfect or legally unsustainable. * Sentencing – Consecutive vs concurrent terms – appellate consideration deferred where conviction quashed. * Remedy – Nullification of proceedings and remittal for fresh plea and trial.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
Court of Appeal cannot revise its own decision; application under wrong rule was incompetent and struck out.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Court of Appeal’s power to revise – Rule 65 applies to revising High Court proceedings, not the Court’s own decisions; * Review procedure – Rule 66 is the proper provision for review of the Court’s judgment; * Procedure – Citing wrong enabling provision renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
24 October 2014 |
|
A defective Notice of Appeal citing a non‑existent decision renders a criminal appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Criminal procedure – Notice of Appeal – Competence of appeal – Rule 68(1) and 68(2) Court of Appeal Rules – Defective notice citing non‑existent decision – Appeal struck out; right to re‑apply subject to limitation.
|
23 October 2014 |
|
An application for extension to file revision was struck out for being procedurally defective, confusing and misconceived.
Civil procedure – application for extension of time – Notice of Motion must state the specific rule and grounds (Rule 48(1)) – grounds must relate to the relief sought – misdescription (Notice of Appeal vs application for revision) fatal – inclusion of matters outside jurisdiction misconceives relief – court may strike out defective application; costs awarded.
|
23 October 2014 |
|
Court of Appeal quashed conviction after finding High Court improperly summarily rejected appeal due to identification, date and exhibit defects.
* Criminal procedure – summary rejection under section 364(1) CPA – powers to be exercised sparingly; High Court must peruse record and consider material issues before summary dismissal.
* Appellate interference – Mbogo/Iddi Kondo principles: appellate court may interfere where inferior court misdirected itself, acted on improper matters or omitted material considerations.
* Identification evidence – dock identification without parade may be unsafe.
* Particulars of charge – variance between charge particulars and trial evidence can vitiate conviction.
* Evidential defect – reliance on exhibit bearing a different name undermines prosecution case.
* Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2) – Court of Appeal may step into lower court's shoes and decide appeal on merits.
|
22 October 2014 |
|
Appeal from a primary court is incompetent without a proper notice of appeal and a High Court certificate.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal – Notice institutes appeal under Rule 68(1) – Defective notice renders appeal incompetent.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Requirement of High Court certificate under s.6(7)(b) Appellate Jurisdiction Act for appeals from Primary Court – absence is fatal to competence.
* Remedy – struck out appeal; option to apply for extension of time in High Court.
|
22 October 2014 |
|
A Notice of Appeal that fails Rule 68(2) requirements (refers to non-existent judgment) renders the appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Criminal procedure – Notice of Appeal – Rule 68(2) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – mandatory particulars for a valid Notice (date of judgment, court, judge, registration number) – defective Notice referring to non-existent judgment – appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; prisoners’ access to legal assistance; remedy of extension of time in High Court.
|
22 October 2014 |
|
Appeal dismissed under Rule 4(2)(a) where appellant released and untraceable, with liberty to restore.
* Criminal procedure – non-appearance of appellant – appeal dismissal under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
* Service and attendance – appellant released from prison and untraceable – effect on continuation of appeal.
* Procedural remedy – dismissal with liberty to restore where appellant later resurfaces.
|
21 October 2014 |
|
A defective notice of appeal referencing a non-existent judgment is jurisdictionally fatal and renders the appeal incompetent.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Rule 68(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Defective notice referring to non-existent judgment – Jurisdictional defect – Appeal incompetent and struck out; appellant may apply to High Court for extension of time to file proper notice.
|
21 October 2014 |
|
A notice of appeal that refers to a non-existent judgment deprives the Court of jurisdiction and renders the appeal incompetent.
* Criminal procedure – notice of appeal – requirement under Rule 68(1) that notice of appeal institutes the appeal; defective notice referring to non-existent judgment; jurisdictional incompetence. * Appeal – preliminary objection – effect of defective notice of appeal – appeal struck out. * Procedural law – remedy – liberty to apply to High Court for extension of time to file proper notice.
|
21 October 2014 |
|
The applicant's extension application was struck out as misconceived, defective, and partly beyond the Court's jurisdiction.
Extension of time – application for revision – Notice of Motion must state correct grounds and cite proper rule – Rule 48(1) CAR – defects and jurisdictional irregularity (inclusion of District Court matter) render application misconceived – Court cannot ignore fundamental procedural defects.
|
21 October 2014 |
|
Failure to inform the appellant of the right to recall witnesses after amending the charge rendered the trial and appeal nullities.
Criminal procedure — Amendment/substitution of charge under s.234 Criminal Procedure Act — duty to inform accused of right to demand recall or further cross‑examination of witnesses (s.234(2)(b)) — non‑compliance fatal; identification evidence at night — sufficiency and credibility; nullity of proceedings and appellate proceedings; discretion whether to order retrial.
|
21 October 2014 |
|
The applicant's illness and instruction to counsel constituted good cause to extend time to file an appeal.
Criminal procedure – Extension of time to appeal under s.361(2) – "Good cause" includes prolonged illness and reliance on counsel; appellate review of discretionary refusal where judge misdirects or prejudges prospects.
|
20 October 2014 |
|
Variance in charge particulars and defective charge and judgment rendered the conviction a nullity; appellant ordered released.
Criminal law — rape of child — variance between particulars of offence and evidence — wrong citation/omission of Penal Code subsection — failure to call child to determine competency (s127 Evidence Act) — PF3 admissibility (s240(3) CPA) — court must formally convict or acquit (ss235(1), 312(2) CPA) — proceedings nullity — revisional powers — retrial declined.
|
17 October 2014 |
|
A notice of appeal that cites a non-existent decision is defective, deprives the Court of jurisdiction, and renders the appeal incompetent.
Criminal appeal – Notice of appeal – Defective notice citing non-existent judgment – Notice of appeal institutes the appeal (Rule 68(1) Court of Appeal Rules 2009) – Jurisdictional defect renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; access to legal assistance for unrepresented incarcerated appellants noted.
|
17 October 2014 |
|
An appeal originating from a Primary Court is incompetent absent a High Court certificate on a point of law under section 6(7)(b).
Appellate jurisdiction – requirement of High Court certificate under section 6(7)(b) Appellate Jurisdiction Act for appeals originating in Primary Courts – failure to obtain certificate renders appeal incompetent – preliminary objection on jurisdiction sustained.
|
16 October 2014 |
|
Failure to obtain a High Court certificate under s.6(7)(b) renders an appeal from the Primary Court incompetent and struck out.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Requirement of High Court certificate under section 6(7)(b) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Appeals from Primary/Magistrates' Court – Failure to obtain certificate renders appeal incompetent. * Procedural law – Preliminary objection – Jurisdictional competence – Lay appellant’s failure to comply with statutory certification not excused.
|
16 October 2014 |
|
A robbery charge omitting the person targeted by violence is fatally defective; conviction quashed and no retrial ordered.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Essential ingredients of offence – charge must specify the person against whom violence or threat was directed; threat cannot be directed at property. Procedure – Particulars of offence – requirement to follow s.135 and Second Schedule forms – failure to state essential ingredient renders charge fatally defective and convictions a nullity. Appellate jurisdiction – power to quash and set aside proceedings; retrial not ordered where not in interests of justice.
|
16 October 2014 |
|
Armed robbery charge was fatally defective for not naming the person threatened, nullifying conviction and requiring release.
Criminal law — Armed robbery — Essential ingredients of offence — Particulars of offence must identify person against whom violence or threat is directed — Threat cannot be said to be directed at property — Section 285 Penal Code; section 135 and Second Schedule forms to Criminal Procedure Act — Defective charge renders proceedings a nullity — Appellate power to quash and order release; retrial not ordered where not in interests of justice.
|
14 October 2014 |
| May 2014 |
|
|
Applicants failed to show good cause for extension of time; custody alone does not excuse unsupported delay.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10, Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – burden on applicant to show good cause; unsupported allegations of delay by prison authorities insufficient. * Prisoners – custody does not relieve applicant of duty to explain delay or produce evidence. * Review proceedings – requirement to identify arguable point of law to justify review.
|
23 May 2014 |
|
An interlocutory High Court order in a land suit is not appealable and requires leave under the Land Disputes Courts Act.
* Appellate jurisdiction – interlocutory orders – section 5(2)(d) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – interlocutory High Court orders not appealable unless finally determine the suit. * Land law – leave to appeal – section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act – mandatory leave for appeals in land matters. * Procedural law – competence of appeal – failure to obtain statutory leave renders appeal incompetent. * Court procedure – power to raise jurisdictional/competence points suo motu; consequence: striking out appeal and remittal.
|
23 May 2014 |
|
Appeal struck out because the applicant's leave was invalidly obtained using an unsworn affidavit and wrong procedure.
* Land law – leave to appeal – procedural requirement: leave in land matters must be sought under s.47(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, not s.5(1)(c) AJA.
* Affidavits – formal validity – must bear jurat of attestation per s.8 Notaries and Commissioners for Oaths Act; unsworn affidavits are invalid.
* Appellate procedure – leave obtained by defective process is a nullity; appeal incompetent without valid leave.
* Revision – Court of Appeal may invoke s.4(2) revisional jurisdiction to quash proceedings and strike out incompetent appeals.
|
23 May 2014 |
|
Interlocutory High Court order in a land suit is not appealable without leave under section 47(1); appeal struck out.
* Civil procedure — Appealability — Interlocutory orders — Section 5(2)(d) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — interlocutory High Court orders that do not finally determine a suit are not appealable. * Land law — Requirement of leave — Section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act — leave from High Court mandatory before appeal to Court of Appeal in land matters. * Procedural competence — Failure to obtain leave renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; matter remitted to trial court.
|
22 May 2014 |
|
A defective, improperly cited and time‑barred notice of appeal is incompetent and struck out.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal – requirements to cite correct case reference and to state nature of conviction/sentence – non‑compliance renders notice defective.
* Time limits – Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 61(2)/68(2)) – notice filed well beyond prescribed period is time‑barred and appeal incompetent.
* Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.6(7)(b) – certificate of point of law where required; procedural avenues from Primary Court to District Court emphasised.
|
22 May 2014 |
|
A notice of appeal that misidentifies the decision and omits required Form B particulars is incurably defective and is struck out.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Rule 68(1),(2),(7); Notice of appeal — requirement to correctly identify decision appealed from; requirement to state whether appeal is against conviction and/or sentence; FORM B (First Schedule) compliance; incompetence and striking out of defective notice; remedy — apply to High Court for extension of time.
|
21 May 2014 |
|
Circumstantial evidence susceptible to multiple interpretations fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conviction quashed.
Criminal law — Circumstantial evidence — Credibility and corroboration of single witness — Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Benefit of doubt — Appeal against conviction and death sentence.
|
20 May 2014 |
|
Appeal allowed — conviction and death sentence quashed due to unsafe evidence and failure to call independent eyewitnesses.
Criminal law - murder; appellate re-evaluation of evidence; credibility of related witnesses; adverse inference for non-production of independent eyewitnesses; alibi.
|
19 May 2014 |
|
Ten-year manslaughter sentence reduced due to plea, provocation, mitigation and risk to dependants; appellant ordered released.
* Criminal law – Manslaughter – Sentence – Whether ten years imprisonment excessive given plea of guilty, provocation and mitigation.
* Sentencing principle – balancing aggravating and mitigating factors; appellate interference only for illegality, wrong principle, failure to consider mitigation, or manifest excessiveness.
* Mitigation – first offender status, plea of guilty, contrition, custody period, dependants, and deceased's conduct/refusal of treatment.
|
19 May 2014 |
|
The appellants' convictions were quashed because visual identification was unsafe and corroboration was inadequate.
* Criminal law – Evidence – Visual identification – Identification evidence must be watertight and free from reasonable possibility of mistake. * Corroboration – Neighbour evidence insufficient where they failed to recall names allegedly given immediately after incident. * Appeal – Appellate interference justified where concurrent findings are perverse or based on misapprehension of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice.
|
19 May 2014 |
|
Reported
Irregular search, defective chain of custody and unreliable recent-possession/footprint evidence warranted quashing the conviction.
Criminal procedure – Search of premises – Officer in charge and written authority (s.38 CPA) – Night searches and emergency exception (s.42, s.40 CPA) – Receipts and chain of custody for seized items – Doctrine of recent possession – Proof of asportation – Footprint/shoe matching and reliability of identification evidence.
|
18 May 2014 |
|
Appellant must appeal the High Court's refusal of extension; Court grants 30 days under Rule 47 to correct the appeal.
* Civil procedure – Appeal competency – appeal must be brought against the High Court order refusing extension of time, not the earlier strike-out order. * Court of Appeal – Rule 47 discretion – granting time to correct procedural defects for unrepresented/incarcerated litigant. * Preliminary objection – competence of appeal where wrong order was targeted.
|
15 May 2014 |
|
Child’s unsworn evidence improperly received absent proof of sufficient intelligence; conviction quashed for insufficient evidence.
Criminal law – Evidence Act s.127(2) – competency of a child witness; voir dire to establish sufficient intelligence and understanding of oath; admissibility of unsworn child evidence; Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) – admissibility of PF3; rape – necessity to prove penetration and proof beyond reasonable doubt; effect of contradictions and implausibilities in prosecution evidence.
|
14 May 2014 |
|
Uncorroborated expert post‑mortem findings, untested against eyewitness evidence, cannot safely support a murder conviction.
Criminal law – murder conviction; expert (post‑mortem) evidence – duty to provide scientific criteria and be tested against lay evidence; acceptance of uncorroborated expert opinion; assessors’ opinions; appellate intervention to quash conviction where expert findings are doubtful and inconsistent with other evidence.
|
14 May 2014 |
|
A conviction based solely on untested visual and dock identification cannot stand; the applicant's conviction was quashed.
Criminal law – visual identification; dock identification; need to exclude mistaken identity; requirement to describe lighting/distance/duration; identification parade; appellate duty to re-hear and not rely on non-record facts; unsafe conviction quashed.
|
13 May 2014 |
|
Failure to prove the specific charged date of rape and fundamental contradictions in evidence warrant acquittal.
* Criminal law – Rape – Necessity to prove commission on the specific date alleged in the charge sheet or to amend the charge. * Criminal procedure – Variance between charge and evidence – effect of failure to prove charged date. * Evidence – Credibility and fundamental contradictions in complainant’s testimony relative to other prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence. * Relief – Conviction and sentence quashed; acquittal and release ordered.
|
12 May 2014 |
|
Seven‑year unexplained delay, failure to name Justices or show proof of requesting judgment warranted dismissal of extension application.
* Criminal procedure – Extension of time to file review – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – necessity to demonstrate sufficient cause and prompt steps to obtain judgment copies.
* Civil/criminal appellate practice – Rule 48(1) & (2) – requirement to name Justices whose decision is sought to be reviewed; omission is fatal.
* Procedure – Rule 66(1) – applicant must indicate grounds intended to be canvassed on review.
* Evidence – delay attributed to Court Registry must be substantiated with proof (e.g., requests to Registry or prison authorities).
|
9 May 2014 |
|
Trial court’s failure to convict before sentencing rendered the appellant’s judgment and sentence null and was quashed.
Criminal procedure – s.235(1) Criminal Procedure Act – conviction must precede sentence; failure to enter conviction is a fatal irregularity rendering judgment and sentence a nullity; revisional powers to quash and remit; sentence may be ordered to run from initial incarceration.
|
9 May 2014 |
|
An extension to apply for review requires good cause and demonstration that the review relies on Rule 66(1) grounds.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — Review of Court of Appeal judgments — Review jurisdiction exceptional and limited — Applicant for extension must show good cause and indicate intended grounds under Rule 66(1).
|
9 May 2014 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or grounds under Rule 66(1); extension to apply for review dismissed.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time to apply for review – Rule 10 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – requirement to show good cause for delay; * Review jurisdiction – finality of Court of Appeal judgments – review available only in rare, exceptional cases; * Rule 66(1) – applications for review must be founded on specified grounds and an extension applicant must indicate reliance on such grounds at the extension stage.
|
8 May 2014 |
|
A single Justice of Appeal cannot quash another single Justice’s ruling; aggrieved parties must apply for Reference to the full Court.
* Criminal procedure – application for extension of time to file review – jurisdiction of a single Justice of Appeal to quash another single Justice’s ruling – remedy by Reference under Rule 62(1)(a) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
|
6 May 2014 |
|
Applicant’s seven-year delay, failure to name Justices and lack of proof of registry delay warranted dismissal of extension application.
* Criminal procedure – application for extension of time to apply for review – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 10, Rule 48(1) & (2), Rule 66(1).
* Procedural requirements – necessity to name Justices whose decision is sought to be reviewed; failure is a material defect.
* Delay – unexplained seven-year delay and lack of proof of timely request for judgment copies; blame on Registry unsubstantiated.
|
5 May 2014 |