|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| July 2006 |
|
|
An application for stay of execution filed many months after judgment is time-barred; a 60-day filing limit applies as guiding practice.
* Civil procedure – stay of execution under Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 (Rule 9(2)(b)) – time limits for filing applications – sixty (60) day guiding period.
* Limitation – relevance of the Law of Limitation Act, 1971 as persuasive guidance for Court of Appeal practice.
* Procedural objection – competence and timeliness under Rule 100.
|
16 July 2006 |
| June 2006 |
|
(From the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Tabora, Katiti, J, dated 23 c June 1995, in Criminal Sessions Case number 119 of 1992) Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Whether circumstantial evidence alone may form the basis murder conviction. Murder - Conviction for murder - Whether a conviction for murder may be based on circumstantial evidence |
8 June 2006 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and assessors’ opinions upheld to dismiss appeal and confirm murder conviction.
* Criminal law – murder – sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal procedure – assessors – effect of trial judge’s remarks in summing-up and whether trial proceeded with aid of assessors (s.265).
* Evidence – credibility of interested witnesses and significance of inconsistent statements.
* Appellate procedure – validity of delivering a unanimous judgment when one member of a three-judge panel dies after conference but before signing.
|
8 June 2006 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and witness credibility upheld; appeal dismissed, and judgment delivered despite one judge’s death after conference.
Criminal law – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Sufficiency and application of principles for circumstantial proof; Criminal procedure – Summing-up and assessors – effect of trial judge’s comments and whether trial conducted with aid of assessors; Witness credibility – interest of relatives of witnesses; Appellate procedure – effect of death of a judge after conference but before judgment composition.
|
8 June 2006 |
|
Court dismissed appeal: circumstantial evidence and witness testimony sufficiently proved the applicant’s guilt; misdirection was not material.
* Criminal law – Murder – reliance on circumstantial evidence – sufficiency and application of authorities.
* Evidence – credibility of interested witnesses; corroboration by physical and post-mortem evidence.
* Criminal procedure – role of assessors; summing-up and material misdirection.
* Appellate procedure – effect of a panel member’s death after conference but before judgment composition.
|
8 June 2006 |
|
Circumstantial evidence upheld as sufficient for murder; isolated summing-up remark to assessors did not vitiate conviction.
Criminal law – sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support murder conviction; assessors and summing-up – effect of isolated remarks on fairness under s.265 Criminal Procedure Act; credibility of interested witnesses; procedural issue – validity of Court of Appeal judgment where a judge dies after a unanimous conference but before signing the written judgment.
|
8 June 2006 |
|
Circumstantial evidence upheld and minor assessors' misdirection found immaterial; appellant's murder-conviction appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – sufficiency and application of authorities; lies as probative of guilt.
* Criminal procedure – Assessors – misdirection in summing-up and effect on trial with assessors (s.265 Criminal Procedure Act).
* Evidence – credibility of interested witnesses (family members) and reliance on principal prosecution witness.
* Appellate procedure – composition and delivery of panel judgment where one judge dies after unanimous conference.
|
8 June 2006 |
| April 2006 |
|
|
A post-preliminary-hearing transfer to a magistrate is unlawful; such trial is a nullity and High Court must resume trial from that stage.
Criminal procedure – Transfer of trials – s.256A(1) Criminal Procedure Act – Transfer to Resident Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction must be made before plea-taking and preliminary hearing – s.192(1) preliminary hearing intended to promote expeditious trial – transfer under s.173 improper – trial after impermissible transfer is nullity.
|
10 April 2006 |
| March 2006 |
|
|
An application to stay execution must be accompanied by the extracted decree; absence renders it incompetent.
* Civil procedure — Stay of execution — requirement to attach extracted decree/order to application; practice treated as having legal force. * Executability — declaratory judgments versus extracted orders; only extracted order/decree is executable and can be stayed. * Practice and procedure — Court practice may supplement rules and be enforced if consistently applied.
|
16 March 2006 |
(From the decision of the Resident Magistrate Court at Tabora, Somi, PRM, Extended Jurisdiction, dated 9 May 2003, in (DC) Civil Appeal number 1 of2003)
Tort- Action for damages for malicious prosecution-whether sufficient to prove only that prosecution was instituted by defendant and terminated in the plaintiff's favour. |
16 March 2006 |
|
Conviction quashed where visual identification was doubtful and the complainant gave a different name than the accused.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification in darkness and when suspect’s face is masked – Reliability and caution required. * Criminal law – Identity discrepancies – Name given by complainant inconsistent with accused’s recorded particulars – effect on safety of conviction. * Appeal – Appellate intervention where conviction is unsafe due to defective identification evidence.
|
15 March 2006 |
|
Non‑compliance with section 214 (right to recall witnesses/opt for retrial) nullified the trial and conviction.
Criminal procedure — Section 214 Criminal Procedure Act — Change of magistrate — Duty to inform accused of right to recall witnesses or to opt for a fresh trial — Non‑compliance vitiates proceedings; conviction quashed.
|
15 March 2006 |
|
Affidavit lacked required jurat place and drafter’s endorsement; court not properly moved and application struck out.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – adequacy of affidavit jurat – section 8 Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act requires jurat to state place and date of swearing.
* Civil procedure – document authentication – rubber stamp insufficient to satisfy mandatory jurat requirements.
* Advocates Act s.44(1) – endorsement of person who draws instrument is mandatory; "endorse" requires writing/signature.
* Interpretation – mandatory effect of "shall"; non-compliance with mandatory authentication/endorsement requirements defeats jurisdiction to entertain the application.
* Remedy – failure to comply with mandatory formalities led to application being struck out with costs.
|
14 March 2006 |
|
Identification evidence upheld for first appellant; second appellant’s conviction overturned due to confused, unexplained shirt evidence.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – visual and voice identification upheld where accused was familiar to witnesses and lighting conditions favourable. * Criminal procedure – calling witnesses not listed at committal – no bar where section 289 procedures for subordinate courts do not preclude calling additional trial witnesses. * Criminal law – alibi – requirement for prior notice and assessment of credibility. * Evidence – property/identification of stolen items – unexplained discrepancies in ownership/markings can render conviction unsafe.
|
14 March 2006 |
|
Failure to use prison appeal procedures and reliance on relatives did not justify extending time to lodge an appeal.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time under Rule 8 – sufficiency of reasons; * Prisoners’ appeals – necessity of using prison appeal procedures; * Delay caused by reliance on relatives, ignorance of law and hospitalization – whether amounting to sufficient cause; * Where no new facts are shown, repetition of previously rejected grounds will not justify extension; * Merits of intended appeal ordinarily not considered when deciding extension of time.
|
14 March 2006 |
|
Doctrine of recent possession insufficient where prosecution fails to prove the stolen items belonged to the complainant.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Doctrine of recent possession – Requirement that stolen goods in accused’s possession be cogently identified as those taken – Burden on prosecution to prove ownership/identity – Common goods insufficient to raise presumption of guilt.
|
14 March 2006 |
|
Conviction quashed where preliminary hearing and interpreter procedures failed, making confession and undisputed facts unreliable.
Criminal procedure – preliminary hearing under s.192 Criminal Procedure Act and G.N. No.192/1988 – memorandum of undisputed facts must be read and explained to accused in language understood; accused must personally indicate undisputed facts. Evidence – extra-judicial statement recorded through an interpreter – interpreter should give evidence to establish accuracy; failure renders statement unsafe. Language/translation issues – evidence of witnesses who do not understand accused’s language may be unreliable.
|
13 March 2006 |
|
Retracted non-cautioned confessions and uncorroborated accomplice evidence cannot safely sustain a murder conviction.
* Criminal law – admissibility of confessions – distinction between cautioned statements (s.58 CPA) and records of interview (s.57 CPA) – requirements for cautioned statements.
* Evidence – retracted confessions – must be received with caution and generally require corroboration.
* Evidence – accomplice testimony – necessitates independent corroboration and cannot corroborate confessions that themselves need corroboration.
* Conviction unsafe where primary inculpatory statements are non-cautioned interviews and accomplice evidence is uncorroborated.
|
13 March 2006 |
|
Court allowed extension of time where uncontradicted prison notice excuse was not considered on merit by the High Court.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time to appeal – High Court duty to consider application on merits and accept uncontradicted affidavit evidence. * Appellate jurisdiction – appealability of orders dismissing extension applications; practice permitting appeal. * Effect of guilty plea in subordinate court – appeals limited by s.360(1) CPA; necessity to determine whether plea was unequivocal and facts disclosed the offence.
|
10 March 2006 |
|
Circumstantial proof that the appellant was last seen with the victim and gave no explanation upheld his murder conviction.
* Criminal law – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen with victim – Accused’s failure to explain strengthens inference of guilt. * Evidence – Unexplained or false statements by accused may have substantive inculpatory effect. * Evidence – Possession/appearance of alleged murder weapon on third party’s property not necessarily exculpatory absent supporting proof.
|
7 March 2006 |
|
Appeal allowed: convictions quashed because nighttime identifications by victims were not watertight.
Criminal law – identification evidence; visual ID at night – torches and lamplight; identification reliability where witnesses know suspects; caution before convicting on uncorroborated nighttime ID; minors’ identification reliability.
|
7 March 2006 |
|
Conviction quashed for unreliable night identification and lack of recent possession linking appellant to stolen property.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification at night and contradictions in eyewitness accounts; Recent possession doctrine – absence of possession or residence where recovered items found; Conviction unsafe where identification is unreliable and connecting evidence lacking.
|
7 March 2006 |
|
Acceptance of prosecution facts rendered the appellant’s plea unequivocal; burglary and robbery convictions and sentences were upheld.
* Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Whether acceptance of prosecution facts transforms an equivocal plea into an unequivocal plea – Admission of facts in open court.
* Offences – Burglary (s.294(1)) and Robbery with violence (ss.285, 286) – Essential ingredients established by prosecution narrative.
* Criminal liability – Doctrine of common intention where co-accused were armed and used threats.
* Sentencing – Application of the Minimum Sentences Act (as amended).
|
6 March 2006 |
|
Confession held voluntary and admissible; appeal dismissed for lack of misdirection and no objection to statement.
Criminal law – voluntariness of extra-judicial statement; admissibility where recorded following procedural guidance; failure to object or cross-examine; second appeal on facts – concurrent findings not disturbed; identification evidence in armed robbery.
|
6 March 2006 |
|
Court quashed murder conviction because confessions were inadmissible or involuntary, collapsing the prosecution case.
Criminal law – Confessions and admissions – admissibility of statements to sungusungu (Peoples Militia Act) under s.27 Evidence Act; voluntariness and torture; inadmissibility of evidence repeating a rejected caution statement; public/village forum confessions not conducive to free confession; conviction unsafe where prosecution relies on inadmissible or involuntary confessions.
|
6 March 2006 |
|
The appellant’s murder conviction was upheld because identification evidence was sufficient despite minor inconsistencies.
Criminal law – Identification evidence: sufficiency where witness familiarity, moonlight and artificial light aided recognition; Contradictions: materiality assessed as minor and non-derogatory; Common intention: liability where accused participated among assailants even if not the direct killer.
|
2 March 2006 |
| February 2006 |
|
|
Failure to direct assessors on provocation is not fatal where provocation was not pleaded or supported by evidence.
* Criminal law — Provocation — Whether trial judge must direct assessors where provocation not pleaded or supported by evidence.
* Criminal procedure — Assessors — Extent to which trial judge's remarks may influence assessors and render conviction unsafe.
* Criminal law — Witchcraft belief — Belief in witchcraft does not, by itself, constitute provocation reducing murder to manslaughter.
* Evidence — Alibi — Sufficiency and contradiction by prosecution witnesses and medical evidence.
|
28 February 2006 |
|
Provocation must be pleaded and proven to be left to assessors; belief in witchcraft is not legal provocation.
Criminal law – Murder – Provocation – Whether provocation must be pleaded/established to be left to assessors – Belief in witchcraft does not constitute legal provocation – Assessors’ directions and potential judicial influence – Alibi and evidential contradictions.
|
28 February 2006 |
|
Omissions relating to assessors were curable; child witness credibility corroborated by appellant's admissions, so conviction upheld.
* Criminal procedure – Assessors in murder trials – statutory requirement for at least two assessors aged 21–60 (Secs. 265, 266(1)) – omission to record ages curable.
* Criminal procedure – Right to object to assessors – practice rule not invariably fatal; omission not fatal where no prejudice and assessors actively participated.
* Evidence – Child eye-witness testimony – requirement for caution but admissible; corroboration by accused’s admission can render conviction safe.
|
27 February 2006 |
|
Procedural lapses did not vitiate trial; evidence (eyewitnesses, caution statement, post‑mortem) proved murder with malice aforethought.
Criminal procedure — assessors: failure to allow objection and to explain duties — procedural irregularity not necessarily fatal if no prejudice; Accelerated Trial Rules (GN 192/88) — non-compliance with Rules 4 and 6 — admissions and exhibits may stand where record shows accused understood and admitted facts; Evidence — corroboration of caution statement by post-mortem and eyewitnesses — malice aforethought established; Appeal dismissed.
|
24 February 2006 |
|
Scant circumstantial evidence without recorded confession or forensic linkage renders a murder conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Requirement of a coherent chain of facts; Confession/admission – necessity of recorded caution or extra-judicial statements; Forensic linkage – testing of alleged weapon; Alibi – effect of uncontradicted alibi on safety of conviction.
|
23 February 2006 |
|
A High Court transfer under s.173(2) (instead of s.256A(1)) is invalid and vitiates subsequent proceedings.
* Criminal procedure – transfer of cases – High Court must invoke s.256A(1) to direct that a case committed for trial be tried by a Resident Magistrate vested with extended jurisdiction – transfers made under s.173(2) are invalid and render subsequent proceedings a nullity; * Court registry/procedure – preliminary hearings and other proceedings must be conducted in the correct court file/registry.
|
23 February 2006 |
|
Extension of time granted where prisoner's uncontested affidavit showed timely notice and High Court failed to consider merits.
Criminal procedure – Extension of time to appeal – Court must consider merits and uncontradicted affidavit – Prisoner’s notice handed to prison authorities – Appealability of order dismissing extension application – Effect of plea of guilty under s.360(1) Criminal Procedure Act.
|
10 February 2006 |
| January 2006 |
|
|
Appeal raises whether death, identity and causal responsibility were proved and whether confessions were voluntary and admissible.
Criminal law – murder – sufficiency of proof of death and identity – corroboration of confessions by eyewitnesses – admissibility of cautioned and extra‑judicial statements – alleged torture and voluntariness of confessions – absence of post‑mortem or expert evidence.
|
1 January 2006 |