|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 2003 |
|
|
A written withdrawal by the appellant results in the appeal being deemed dismissed under Rule 70(1).
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Withdrawal by appellant – Effect of written notice under Rule 70(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 – Appeal deemed dismissed.
|
20 August 2003 |
|
Appeal dismissed: expulsion lawful, hearing afforded, and damages/refund claims not proved.
Co‑operative societies — Expulsion of members — Lawful grounds under Rules 15 and 16(c), and s.47(1) Co‑operative Societies Act — Illegal meetings and use of fake members — Natural justice — Opportunity to be heard — Proof of special damages and refundable contributions.
|
19 August 2003 |
|
Confessions induced by torture are involuntary and inadmissible; remaining evidence was insufficient, so convictions quashed.
Criminal law – admissibility of confessions – voluntariness required under s.27 Evidence Act; confessions induced by torture inadmissible; trial judge must determine voluntariness before assessing truth; unreliable visual identification and insufficient circumstantial evidence cannot sustain conviction once confessions excluded.
|
14 August 2003 |
|
Confession relevance is insufficient alone; voluntariness is required, and a voluntary confession corroborated by ballistic and eyewitness evidence sustained the conviction.
* Criminal law – admissibility of confession – relevance not sole test; voluntariness required; confessions obtained by torture inadmissible.
* Evidence – corroboration – ballistic evidence and eyewitness accounts can mutually corroborate circumstantial case.
* Criminal procedure – alibi – failure to give statutory notice permits court to accord no weight to alibi.
* Appeal – appellate review – first appellate judge must apply correct legal test but, where required, same conclusion may be inevitable on facts.
|
1 August 2003 |
| July 2003 |
|
|
Court heard delayed review due to alleged fraud, found fraud unproven and identification evidence reliable, and dismissed the application.
Criminal procedure – review of appellate judgment – inordinate delay but allegation of fraud may justify hearing; fraud must be credibly established. Evidence – single-witness identification – sufficiency of opportunity, reliability and trial judge’s evaluation. Identification parade – procedural guidelines are for guidance and shortcomings ought to be raised at trial or on appeal.
|
25 July 2003 |
|
Appeal to restore a suit struck out for want of prosecution dismissed for unexplained delay and lack of relevant supporting affidavit.
Civil procedure – restoration of a suit struck out for want of prosecution – plaintiff’s duty to prosecute and follow up proceedings – relevance and timing of evidence in applications to set aside strike-out – need for affidavit evidence before trial judge – appellate review of discretionary refusal to restore.
|
25 July 2003 |
|
Application for stay of execution dismissed as execution was already carried out; applicant may sue for repossession.
* Civil procedure – Stay of execution – application under Rule 9(2)(b) – application overtaken by events where property already attached and sold. * Execution – attachment and sale of chattel – stay cannot be granted after execution completed. * Remedies – action for repossession against seller and purchaser; objection proceedings under Order 21 Rule 57 not appealable.
|
25 July 2003 |
|
A stay of execution was granted pending appeal on balance of convenience, subject to a Tshs 30,000,000 security deposit.
Civil procedure – stay of execution pending appeal – validity and timing of notice of appeal – requirement of leave to appeal – balance of convenience – security deposit as condition for stay.
|
25 July 2003 |
|
Appellate court upheld murder conviction: untendered police statements inadmissible, provocation and intoxication defences unavailable.
Criminal law – murder – admissibility of prior police statements – statements not tendered are not part of the record and cannot be relied upon; Provocation – section 202 Penal Code – requires wrongful act/insult likely to deprive ordinary person of self-control; Intoxication – voluntariness and capacity to form intent must be established to avail defence.
|
14 July 2003 |
|
The applicant’s murder conviction upheld: identification reliable, alibi insufficient, appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Murder – Visual identification in daylight by a familiar witness; * Evidence – Discrepancies between police statement and courtroom testimony – immaterial inconsistencies; * Defence of alibi – accused need not prove alibi, must raise reasonable doubt; * Circumstantial evidence – inculpatory facts must be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
|
2 July 2003 |
|
Murder conviction quashed: dying declaration improperly admitted, conviction reduced to manslaughter with ten-year sentence.
Criminal law – murder v manslaughter; admissibility of dying declarations under s34-B Evidence Act; requirements of s34B(2) cumulative; self-defence not raised on record; accomplice evidence; 'mob justice' no lawful defence; appellate substitution of conviction and sentence.
|
1 July 2003 |
| June 2003 |
|
|
Daytime visual identification by a credible witness upheld murder conviction; failure to give statutory alibi notice fatal to defence.
Criminal law – Murder – Identification evidence – Visual identification in daylight at close range by a credible witness; Waziri Adan test applied – Alibi – failure to give notice under s.194(4) Criminal Procedure Act justified ignoring alibi – Appeal dismissed.
|
27 June 2003 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Cautioned statement - Admissibility in evidence - May be admitted in evidence when voluntarily made.
Criminal Practice and Procedure — Summing up to assessors - Trial judge disclosing his views to the assessors — Whether the assessors are thereby influenced.
Criminal Law - Common intention - Hiring or procuring another person to commit an offence - Whether a common intention is thereby formed - Common interest and counseling or procuring distinguished - Sections 22 and 23 of the Penal Code. |
23 June 2003 |
| May 2003 |
|
|
Court granted extension of time to file revision where applicant, a non‑party, lacked knowledge of the adverse High Court ruling and showed an arguable case.
Court of Appeal – extension of time – application for revision – sixty‑day limitation by analogy to Law of Limitation Act, 1971 – discretionary power under Court Rules – lack of knowledge of judgment by non‑party – requirement to show prima facie arguable case/likelihood of success – audi alteram partem considerations.
|
26 May 2003 |
| February 2003 |
|
|
Proceedings were nullified because a contested issue of malice was decided without assessors or a proper trial.
Criminal law – murder – malice aforethought – where malice is contested a proper trial with assessors is required; undisputed facts do not dispense with trial on essential ingredients; conviction/sentence without formal conviction and without assessors is irregular; proceedings declared nullity and retrial ordered.
|
21 February 2003 |
|
Where malice aforethought is disputed a proper trial with assessors is required; conviction must precede sentence, retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – disputed essential element (malice aforethought) requires a trial; requirement to sit assessors (s.265 Criminal Procedure Act); conviction must precede sentence; procedural irregularity renders proceedings a nullity and warrants retrial.
|
21 February 2003 |