|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2015 |
|
|
Conviction quashed because trial and first appellate courts failed to evaluate the appellant’s alibi, causing miscarriage of justice.
Criminal law – Evidence – Child witness voire dire – competency and understanding of oath; Criminal procedure – Variance between charge and evidence as to time – s.234(3) CPA – immaterial; Criminal procedure – Duty to evaluate defence (alibi) – failure to consider defence amounts to miscarriage of justice; Appellate jurisdiction – Exercise of revisional powers to quash unsafe convictions.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Appellant’s murder conviction and death sentence upheld where eyewitness and circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain proving guilt.
* Criminal law – Murder – conviction based on combined direct eyewitness evidence and circumstantial evidence – unbroken chain of inferences required for circumstantial proof.
* Evidence – inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts from chaotic scenes – minor variations do not necessarily impeach core facts.
* Procedure – role of assessors and trial judge’s duty to address circumstantial evidence submissions in summing-up.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Appellate court expunged a tardy cautioned statement but upheld conviction based on voluntary confessions and discovery.
* Criminal procedure – admissibility of evidence – objections to illegally obtained evidence should be raised at trial – relevance of sections 145 (Evidence Act) and 169 (CPA).
* Evidence – cautioned statement – statement taken outside statutory four-hour period expunged.
* Evidence – post-mortem report admitted at preliminary hearing and deemed proved under section 192(4) CPA.
* Confession – private admission and subsequent open-air confession plus discovery of weapon can sustain conviction.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Omitting the allegation of "intent to defraud" in an obtaining-by-false-pretences charge renders the conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Obtaining by false pretences – Essential ingredient: "intent to defraud" must be alleged in the particulars of the charge; omission is fatal – Defective charge – Conviction unsafe and liable to be quashed.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Strict, cumulative compliance with Evidence Act s34B is mandatory; non‑compliant written statements are inadmissible and can vitiate a conviction.
Evidence Act s.34B – written statements in lieu of oral testimony – strict and cumulative compliance with s.34B(2)(a)–(f) required; absence of signature/declaration and failure to serve copies fatal to admissibility; court must enforce statutory requirements irrespective of defence silence; expunction of inadmissible statements may render conviction unsafe where remaining evidence is hearsay.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Failure to consider the defence evidence rendered the appellant's conviction unsafe and was quashed.
Criminal law – Incest – conviction largely based on DNA and victim testimony – Failure to consider defence evidence – improper evaluation vitiates conviction – appellate duty to re-evaluate evidence – miscarriage of justice.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Interim orders made without hearing affected parties violated the constitutional right to be heard and were set aside; record remitted for rehearing.
* Civil procedure — interim orders — status quo — requirement to afford affected parties hearing — breach of audi alteram partem vitiates order.
* Judicial procedure — chambers/urgent applications — limits on ex parte relief and contempt orders against named officials.
* Appellate jurisdiction — exercise of revisional powers under s.4(3) AJA to set aside irregular orders and remit for rehearing.
|
2 September 2015 |
|
Conviction for unlawful confinement and compensation quashed where evidence did not prove confinement or causation of death.
Criminal law – Substitution of offences under section 300 Criminal Procedure Act – Requirements that proved particulars reduce to a cognate/minor offence – Wrongful confinement (s.253 Penal Code) – Proof of mens rea and causation – Compensation ordered on a conviction that is unsustained.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
A Notice of Appeal misdescribing the conviction renders the appeal incompetent and will be struck out.
* Criminal procedure – Notice of Appeal – mandatory requirement to state nature of conviction, sentence, order or finding – misstatement renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
A criminal third appeal is incompetent and must be struck out unless the High Court certifies a point of law is involved.
Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.6(7)(b) — criminal third appeals — requirement of High Court certificate that a point of law is involved — competence of appeal — striking out for non-compliance; right to refile subject to limitation.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
The applicant’s constitutional right to be heard was denied, rendering the High Court’s determination void and requiring a fresh hearing.
Constitutional and procedural law – Right to be heard (Article 13(6)(a)) – Judicial recusal – Determination without hearing parties – Nullity of proceedings – Quashing and ordering rehearing before another judge.
|
1 September 2015 |
| August 2015 |
|
|
A third appeal from a Primary Court is incompetent without a High Court certificate that a point of law is involved.
* Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.6(7)(b) – third appeals from Primary Court – requirement of High Court certificate that a point of law is involved; competency of appeal; procedural compliance and effect of absence of certificate.
|
31 August 2015 |
|
Recognition under moonlight and the victim’s account sufficed to prove rape; appeal dismissed and conviction upheld.
* Criminal law – Rape – Visual identification by recognition – Waziri Amani factors (duration, distance, light intensity, prior acquaintance, prompt identification) – Reliability of identification under moonlight. * Criminal law – Rape – Proof of penetration – section 130(4)(a) – slightest penetration sufficient; victim’s description and circumstances may prove penetration.
|
27 August 2015 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove the charged date and the trial court did not properly consider the defence.
Criminal law – conviction vitiated where prosecution fails to prove date in charge; duty to consider defence under s.312(1) CPA; variance in charge requires amendment under s.234 CPA; improper burden‑shifting; second appeal jurisdiction where misapprehension of evidence renders conviction unsafe.
|
24 August 2015 |
|
An application for extension of time to seek revision of the Court of Appeal’s own decision is misconceived and struck out.
* Criminal procedure – Application for extension of time to seek revision – Where the applicant seeks extension to apply for revision of the Court of Appeal’s own decision, the application is misconceived and not competent – Court lacks jurisdiction to be moved to revise its own judgment in that manner.
|
24 August 2015 |
|
Conviction quashed for incurably defective charge and inadmissible child testimony due to omitted voir dire.
Criminal procedure – defective charge sheet – citation of non-existent statutory provision and failure to specify category of offence; child witnesses – competency and voir dire under section 127 Evidence Act – omission renders testimony discountable; unfair trial – conviction quashed; no retrial ordered.
|
24 August 2015 |
|
Superfluous citation of Court Rules does not render an application incompetent absent shown prejudice.
Court of Appeal – extension of time – citation of enabling provisions – competence – Rule 10 and Rule 62(1)(a) sufficient – superfluous citation harmless – preliminary objection dismissed.
|
24 August 2015 |
|
Delay excused but failure to show any Rule 66(1) grounds meant extension to seek review was refused.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to apply for review – Rule 10 and Rule 66(3) Court of Appeal Rules – applicant must account for delay and show an arguable ground under Rule 66(1); evidentiary sufficiency of respondent's general denial versus specific affidavit evidence from prison authorities.
|
24 August 2015 |
|
An application to extend time to seek revision of this Court's own decision is incompetent and was struck out.
* Criminal procedure – conviction and appeals dismissed – application for extension of time to lodge revision against Court of Appeal decision – competence of such application. * Jurisdiction – Court of Appeal cannot revise its own decision; an application seeking time to file such a revision is misconceived and will be struck out.
|
21 August 2015 |
|
Superfluous citation of Rules does not oust jurisdiction; Rule 10 and Rule 62(1)(a) suffice to hear extension applications.
Criminal procedure – Court of Appeal Rules – application for extension of time – citation of enabling provisions – superfluous citation harmless where no prejudice – jurisdiction of single justice (Rule 10; Rule 62(1)(a)).
|
21 August 2015 |
|
Delay excused by prison processes but applicants failed to plead any Rule 66(1) ground; application dismissed.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time to apply for review – Rule 10 and Rule 66(3) Court of Appeal Rules – requirements: account for delay and arguable grounds under Rule 66(1).
* Review – permissible grounds under Rule 66(1): manifest error on face of record; denial of hearing; decision nullity; lack of jurisdiction; judgment procured by fraud or perjury.
* Evidence – respondent’s general denial insufficient; need for specific counter-affidavit (e.g., from prison officer) to rebut specific factual averments.
|
21 August 2015 |
|
Conviction quashed where visual identification evidence was unreliable and lower courts misapprehended the evidence.
Criminal law – Visual identification evidence – Application of Waziri Amani guidelines (time, distance, lighting, prior acquaintance) – Concurrent findings and misapprehension of evidence – Unsafe conviction; sentence quashed.
|
20 August 2015 |
|
Appellate court granted extension where High Court wrongly disregarded uncontradicted affidavit alleging prison authorities caused delay.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to appeal – uncontradicted affidavit of prisoner alleging prison authorities’ delay – absence of counter‑affidavit – appellate intervention under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
|
20 August 2015 |
|
An appeal filed beyond 60 days without Registrar certification or extension is incompetent and struck out.
Civil procedure — Time limits for instituting appeals — Rule 90(1) Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules — proviso excluding time for preparation of High Court copies where application made within 30 days and certified by Registrar — failure to request copies within 30 days and absence of Registrar’s certification — requirement to apply for extension of time where delay anticipated — incompetent appeal struck out with costs.
|
20 August 2015 |
|
A premature application for extension of time (filed before reserved reasons were delivered) is misconceived and appeal thereto is struck out.
Criminal procedure – extension of time – premature applications – reserved reasons; Court of Appeal direction to High Court to furnish reasons and remit record; misconceived applications and appeals; administrative completion before fresh applications.
|
20 August 2015 |
|
The applicant’s premature application for extension of time was misconceived; appeal struck out and record remitted for completion.
* Criminal procedure — extension of time — premature application — application filed before reserved reasons supplied — misconceived application. * Court of Appeal directions — remittal of record for completion of appellate record. * Procedural finality — administrative steps required before determination of pending appeal.
|
20 August 2015 |
|
Court quashed rape conviction over piecemeal caution statement evaluation and illegal sentence for an eighteen-year-old.
Criminal law — Rape: evaluation of caution statements — inadmissible piecemeal acceptance; Charge particulars — necessity to specify subsection(s) of s.130 Penal Code; Sentencing — s.131(2) limits penalties for offenders aged eighteen or under; Appellate interference where misdirections on evidence and illegal sentence occur.
|
19 August 2015 |
|
High Court wrongly decided merits on an extension application; Court of Appeal quashed the ruling and granted extension with timelines.
Criminal procedure – extension of time under section 361 CPA – inadmissibility of assessing merits at extension stage – once delay satisfactorily explained extension generally granted; appeals procedure – Rule 47 inapplicable to extension to High Court; Court of Appeal may use revisional jurisdiction (s.4(2) AJA) to grant extension.
|
19 August 2015 |
|
Assessor misdirection, denial of cross-examination and failure to evaluate defence vitiated convictions; retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – assessors – necessity to direct assessors on all vital evidence (including identification parade) so their opinions are informed. * Criminal procedure – trials within trial – co-accused must be allowed to participate and cross-examine; conflict of interest arises where one counsel represents co-accused whose interests diverge. * Criminal procedure – judgment must evaluate defence evidence; failure to do so vitiates conviction. * Remedy – revisional jurisdiction: quashing of proceedings and ordering of retrial before different judge and assessors with separate counsel.
|
18 August 2015 |
|
The appellant’s conviction was upheld, but absence of proof that the victim was under ten required substituting life imprisonment with 30 years.
* Criminal law – sexual offences against children – reception and assessment of unsworn evidence of child witnesses under s127 Evidence Act; * Criminal law – sentencing – requirement to prove victim’s age to attract mandatory life sentence under s154(2) Penal Code; * Appellate jurisdiction – revisional powers to quash sentence and substitute an appropriate sentence under s4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
|
18 August 2015 |
|
A defective charge sheet citing a non‑existent provision and lacking particulars vitiated the trial; conviction quashed and appellant released.
Criminal law – Rape charge – requirement to particularise category under section 130(2) Penal Code; defective citation of provisions vitiates trial; identification evidence at night – necessity to prove source/quality of light; alibi notice under CPA s.194 – court’s discretion and obligation; appellate intervention – quashing conviction and setting aside sentence; procedural irregularity by first appellate judge noted.
|
18 August 2015 |
|
An application for stay of execution is incompetent where the drawn order/decree is not annexed to the Notice of Motion.
Civil procedure - Stay of execution - Necessity to annex drawn decree/drawn order to Notice of Motion - Judgment copy not a substitute for decree - Incompetence and striking out of application for non-compliance.
|
18 August 2015 |
|
A stay application without the drawn order annexed is incompetent and must be struck out.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution — Requirement to annex the drawn decree/drawn order to the Notice of Motion — Judgment/ruling cannot substitute for the drawn decree — Non‑compliance renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out (see distinction under s.28 Civil Procedure Code).
|
17 August 2015 |
|
Failure to evaluate the accused's defence rendered the rape conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and release ordered.
Criminal law – evaluation of evidence – duty to consider and evaluate defence/alibi; failure to evaluate defence vitiates conviction; unsafe conviction; appellate review of fairness of trial.
|
14 August 2015 |
|
Cautioned statement improperly admitted and expunged; recognition identification sufficient to uphold gang rape conviction; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Identification evidence (recognition v visual) – caution in reliance on recognition evidence; Cautioned statements – right of accused to comment before admission – failure amounts to incurable irregularity and expungement; PF3 admissibility; Existence of "armed robbery" offence — 1989 amendments and later statutory definition (2004).
|
14 August 2015 |
| April 2015 |
|
|
Court upheld conviction: on‑scene visual and voice identification by familiar witnesses deemed reliable despite procedural evidentiary gaps.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual and voice identification by on‑scene, familiar witnesses under moonlight/firelight – Reliability and sufficiency; Evidence – Failure to tender PF3 and to call ballistic expert – effect on prosecution case; Criminal procedure – Search and seizure – non‑compliance with s.38(3) and expungement of evidence; Identification parade – not always necessary where witnesses are familiar.
|
21 April 2015 |