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.

Visit website

https://jmap.judiciary.go.tz/jmap/jmap-coa

12 judgments

Advanced search

Court registries

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

12 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
May 2005
Mapinduzi Cleophace vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2005) [2005] TZCA 167 (19 May 2005) An imprisoned applicant must be afforded the right to be heard before an application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Criminal procedure — leave to appeal out of time (s.361 CPA) — service and attendance of imprisoned applicant — right to be heard (Article 13(6)(a)) — natural justice — improper determination of merits after striking out application — remittal to High Court.	19 May 2005
Daudi s/o Haga vs Jenitha Abdon Machafu (Tabora Civil Application No. 4 of 2003) [2005] TZCA 187 (10 May 2005) Ignorance of the Court of Appeal's revisional jurisdiction does not justify inordinate delay; extension of time dismissed. * Civil procedure — extension of time — criteria for sufficient cause — ignorance of revisional jurisdiction not sufficient. * Appellate procedure — revisional jurisdiction — requirement to apply within prescribed period after exhausting ordinary appeals. * Locus standi — prior High Court rulings striking out guardian’s participation relevant to proceedings.	10 May 2005
Daudi s/o Haga vs Jenitha Abdon Machafu (Tabora Civil Application No. 4 of 2003) [2005] TZCA 188 (10 May 2005) Ignorance of revisional jurisdiction does not excuse inordinate delay; extension to apply for revision refused. Civil procedure — Extension of time to apply for revision — Inordinate delay — Ignorance of revisional jurisdiction not sufficient excuse — Prior vexatious conduct and lack of locus standi relevant to discretionary refusal.	10 May 2005
Kwitega Maganga vs Samson Lushinge (MZA Civil Application No. 11 of 2004) [2005] TZCA 225 (10 May 2005) An appellant must first seek High Court relief to set aside a withdrawal/dismissal before applying to the Court of Appeal for extension. Civil procedure — extension of time to file notice of appeal — withdrawal/dismissal for want of prosecution — applicant must first apply to High Court to set aside order — Appellate Jurisdiction Act ss.10 & 11(1) — Court of Appeal Rules r.44 — premature application to Court of Appeal — striking out with costs.	10 May 2005
Kwitega Maganga vs Samson Lushinge (Mza Civil Application No. 11 of 2004) [2005] TZCA 249 (10 May 2005) An appellant must first apply to the High Court to set aside a dismissal/withdrawal before seeking extension of time in the Court of Appeal. Civil procedure — Extension of time to file notice of appeal — Where appeal in High Court dismissed/withdrawn for want of prosecution, aggrieved party must first apply to same High Court to set aside the order — Appellate Jurisdiction Act ss.10 & 11(1) — Court of Appeal Rules r.44 — preliminary presentation to High Court required.	10 May 2005
March 2005
Ikindila Wigae vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 60 of 2000) [2005] TZCA 102 (10 March 2005) Reported The applicant’s bail was unlawfully cancelled without hearing or reasons; appellate court quashed the cancellation and restored bail. Criminal procedure – Bail – Cancellation or variation of bail – Section 150 Criminal Procedure Act – Requirement that circumstances justifying cancellation be brought by prosecutor or police – Accused’s right to be heard – Duty to give reasons for decisions affecting rights – Unlawful cancellation quashed and bail restored.	10 March 2005
Ikindila Wigae vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2000) [2005] TZCA 270 (10 March 2005) Reported Criminal Practice and Procedure - Bail - Cancellation ofBail - Court grants bail and subsequently cancels it without giving reasons for the cancellation - Whether proper. Natural Justice - Right to be heard - Court granted bail to the appellant but Subsequently cancelled it without hearing the appellant before the cancellation - A breach of natural justice.	10 March 2005
Iddi Mayala vs Bahati Mabula (Mza Civil Application No. 8 of 2004) [2005] TZCA 246 (4 March 2005) Power of attorney holders cannot represent resident parties in the Court of Appeal; applications dismissed for improper representation. Civil procedure – appearance and representation – Court of Appeal Rules 1979 Rule 28 – power of attorney holders may represent only non-residents; resident parties must appear in person or by advocate – non-appearance and improper representation – dismissal under Rule 58(1).	4 March 2005
The Registered Trustees of Joy in The Harvest vs Hamza Sungura (Civil Application No. 3 of 2003) [2005] TZCA 185 (1 March 2005) Omission of the place in an affidavit jurat is a statutory fatal defect; rubber stamp does not cure it. Notaries/Public commissioners for oaths – Jurat must state place where oath or affidavit taken – Section 8 Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Ordinance, Cap. 12 – Omission of place fatal – Rubber stamp does not cure – Defective affidavit incurably defective – Single-judge decisions binding.	1 March 2005
February 2005
Juma Ndege vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2001) [2005] TZCA 127 (9 February 2005) Excessive force and surrounding conduct established malice aforethought; murder conviction upheld. * Criminal law – Murder – Malice aforethought – Inference of intent from accused’s conduct before and after the offence; nature of weapon and location/extent of injury as indicia of malice. * Evidence – Non‑exhibition of weapon – not fatal where surrounding evidence and similar exhibit support inference of intent. * Principle – Person is taken to intend natural consequences of his act.	9 February 2005
James Edward Todd vs Celestine Gwomaka (Mza Civil Application No. 1 of 1998) [2005] TZCA 171 (7 February 2005) Adoption granted where required consents obtained and adoption found to be in the child's best interests. * Family Law – Adoption – Requirement of parental/guardian consent under s.4(4)(a) – Court’s power to dispense with consent; * Adoption – Child’s welfare paramount under s.7(1)(b) and CRC Article 3; * Evidence – weight of child’s wishes and consent of natural parents/guardian.	7 February 2005
January 2005
Leonard Zedekia Maratu vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2005) [2005] TZCA 138 (1 January 2005) Court emphasised need for close scrutiny of identification evidence and held owner's failure to testify may occasion a failure of justice. * Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence – Necessity of close scrutiny of identification and effect of contradictions. * Criminal procedure – Second appeal – Restraint in disturbing concurrent findings; re‑examination where misdirections/non‑directions exist. * Evidence – Complainant/non‑appearance – Failure of owner to testify may occasion failure of justice where proof of theft is essential. * Penal law – Robbery presupposes theft (appropriation with intent to steal).	1 January 2005