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.
4 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
4 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
November 1990
A mandamus based on unsworn submissions and untendered documents is void; essential factual proof is required.
Administrative law – mandamus — court may not grant mandamus absent proof of essential facts; Civil procedure – unsworn submissions and untendered documents are not evidence; Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 34) – additional evidence cannot cure total absence of evidence at first instance; Procedural law – correct form and intitulation for ex parte leave to apply for mandamus.
30 November 1990
Court restored withdrawn notice of appeal and granted leave and time extensions due to mistake-induced withdrawal.
Appellate procedure — restoration of withdrawn/abandoned notice of appeal — Court’s power under Rule 3(2) and inherent jurisdiction — Rule 84 (deemed withdrawal) — extensions of time under Rule 8 — service and copy requirements (Rule 83/Rule 44) considered.
30 November 1990
Contractor negligent for inadequate diversion; no contributory negligence; special damages largely upheld, funeral expenses limited.
Tort—Negligence by contractor for inadequate road diversion and warnings at uncompleted bridge; contributory negligence rejected; proof and apportionment of special damages; recovery limits where claimant is not deceased's personal representative; assessment of non-user (loss of use) damages.
30 November 1990
Failure to properly direct assessors and reliance on conjectural findings rendered the murder conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – murder – defence of mistake of fact (s.11 Penal Code) – duty to charge assessors on available defences – unsafe conviction where trial judge’s findings rest on conjecture and contradict autopsy/witness evidence.
30 November 1990