|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2014 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where information was defective and the guilty plea and sentencing procedures were fundamentally irregular.
Criminal procedure – defective information – omission to name deceased; statutory requirements of s.135 CPA; plea-taking – requirements of s.282 CPA and need to record accused’s own words; inadmissibility of counsel admitting facts on accused’s behalf; conviction after mitigation and improper sentencing; relief by quashing conviction and setting aside sentence; DPP discretion to re‑charge.
|
30 October 2014 |
|
Statutory rape conviction upheld where victim's age was established by unchallenged evidence; second-appeal issues not entertained.
* Criminal law – Statutory rape – victim's age established by unchallenged testimony and corroboration by accused – failure to cross-examine implies acceptance of evidence.
* Evidence – Parental testimony on child's age treated as cogent evidence.
* Appellate procedure – Second appeal cannot entertain matters not raised or decided in the first appellate court.
|
30 October 2014 |
|
Retracted confession was admissible and corroborated; malice aforethought established, appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – admissibility of extra-judicial/confessional statement – voluntariness and trial-within-trial; Retracted confession – need for independent corroboration; Malice aforethought – inference from weapon used, injuries inflicted, motive and conduct; Appellate review of credibility findings.
|
30 October 2014 |
|
Failure to enter a conviction before sentencing under section 235(1) renders the sentence and subsequent appeals incompetent; record remitted for lawful conviction and sentencing.
Criminal procedure – mandatory requirement to enter conviction before sentence (s.235(1) Criminal Procedure Act) – failure to enter conviction renders sentence and judgment a nullity – appeal based on incompetent judgment is incompetent – Court of Appeal’s revisional powers (s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act) to nullify and remit for proper conviction and sentencing – credit for time served.
|
30 October 2014 |
|
Court upheld rape conviction of a child’s assailant: child identification corroborated and voir dire procedure proper.
Criminal law – rape of a child – visual identification by a child of tender years; corroboration by other witness and accused’s flight; voir dire and reception of unsworn testimony under s.127 Evidence Act; concurrent findings of fact upheld.
|
29 October 2014 |
|
Application for extension to appeal struck out as incompetent where no competent appeal had been instituted against the High Court decision.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to file appeal – competence of appeal – where High Court had found no competent appeal because applicant failed to institute fresh appeal after extension; Rule 47 Court of Appeal Rules (applying first to High Court) – Rule 10 (good cause) – applicant advised to apply to High Court for extension and fully explain delay.
|
29 October 2014 |
|
Application for extension of time to appeal struck out as incompetent; applicant must first seek High Court extension.
Criminal procedure — extension of time to file appeal — Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 Rule 10 (good cause) and Rule 47 (application to High Court first) — requirement to file fresh Notice and Petition under s.361(1)(a),(b) Criminal Procedure Act — incompetence of appeal where no competent appeal instituted.
|
29 October 2014 |
|
A trial court’s suo motu jurisdictional ruling without hearing parties is a fundamental procedural error, so appeal allowed and matter remitted.
* Civil procedure – court raising issues suo motu – limits under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC – requirement to afford parties opportunity to be heard (audi alteram partem).
* Administrative law/procedure – challenge to disciplinary decisions of Inspector General of Police – procedural route (ordinary suit v. judicial review) left for trial court to determine on merits.
* Jurisdictional error – decision based on unpleaded issue – nullity and remedy by quashing and remittal.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for delay or arguable grounds for review; extension of time was refused.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – requirement to show good cause for delay.
* Duty to show efforts to obtain judgment copy before complaining of non‑supply.
* Review applications – necessity to demonstrate prospects of success under Rule 66(1)(a)–(e) when seeking extension.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
Appeal dismissed: procedural lapses curable and eyewitness evidence supported malice aforethought for murder.
Criminal procedure — memorandum of matters not in dispute — duty to read over and explain (s192(3)) — failure curable if no prejudice (s388(1)); Evidence — post‑mortem date clerical error; Impeachment — prior inconsistent statement and section 169; Credibility — eyewitness identification and corroboration; Murder — malice aforethought inferred from weapon and wound; Assessors — judge may differ but must give reasons.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
Failure to read the memorandum aloud was curable; credible eyewitness evidence and injuries supported malice aforethought; appeal dismissed.
Criminal procedure – s192(3) memorandum of matters not in dispute must be read over and explained – failure curable under s388(1) if no prejudice; Evidence – admissibility and use of prior inconsistent/cautioned statements for impeachment; Credibility of eyewitnesses; Malice aforethought may be inferred from use of a dangerous weapon and injury location; Clerical errors in exhibits do not necessarily affect admissibility.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
Trial court erred by deciding a suo motu jurisdictional issue without hearing parties; judgment quashed and remitted.
Administrative law – challenge to disciplinary dismissal – availability of ordinary civil suit v. judicial review; Civil procedure – court raising issues suo motu under Order XIV Rule 5 – requirement to afford parties opportunity to address amended or additional issues; Natural justice – audi alteram partem; Remedy – quashing and remitting for trial before different judge.
|
27 October 2014 |
|
Application to strike out respondent’s notice of appeal dismissed; no statutory duty to chase the court registry for transcripts.
Civil procedure — application to strike out notice of appeal under Rule 89(2) — failure to obtain copies of proceedings after request — no statutory duty to remind Registry — once Rule 83 complied with, reminder is practical not mandatory.
|
24 October 2014 |
|
Failure to chase the registry does not justify striking out a notice of appeal where Rule 83 has been complied with.
* Appellate procedure – Application to strike out notice of appeal under Rule 89(2) – Whether failure to follow up registry for copies of proceedings justifies striking out.
* Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 83 compliance – once complied with, an intending appellant’s position is secure.
* Registry obligations – Practical prudence to remind registry but no statutory duty to chase copies of proceedings.
|
24 October 2014 |
|
Extension of time to seek revision denied where non‑party applicant lacked viable remedy and grant would be futile.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Revision – Discretion to extend time – Promptness after knowledge – Non‑party to earlier proceedings lacks locus to overturn matrimonial findings by revision – Alternative remedies (Rule 85 application; civil action) may render extension futile.
|
24 October 2014 |
|
Extension of time to seek revision refused where applicant, not party to earlier proceedings, had alternative remedies and likely no success.
Civil procedure — Extension of time to file revision — Applicant not party to earlier proceedings — Revision not appropriate remedy — Alternative remedies include Rule 85 application to set aside sale, civil action for property, or damages for adultery — Court may refuse extension as futile.
|
23 October 2014 |
|
Conviction based solely on uncorroborated cautioned and extra-judicial statements, without proper assessors’ involvement, is unsafe.
Criminal law – murder – reliance on cautioned and extra-judicial statements; corroboration required – evidence requiring corroboration cannot corroborate other similar evidence; assessors’ involvement – trial-within-trial ruling must be delivered in court and assessors must be properly involved and directed; delay in producing accused to court and allegations of torture undermine voluntariness; prosecution duty to call readily available material witnesses.
|
22 October 2014 |
|
Conviction based on uncorroborated cautioned and extra-judicial statements was unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
* Criminal procedure – admissibility of cautioned and extra-judicial statements – corroboration rules – a confession requiring corroboration cannot corroborate another such statement.
* Trial with assessors – necessity to involve assessors in all stages (except conduct of trial within trial) and to direct them on dangers of uncorroborated statements.
* Voluntariness of statements – delay in bringing accused before court and allegations of torture undermine reliability.
* Prosecution duty – calling available witnesses connected to transaction; failure permits adverse inference and may render conviction unsafe.
|
22 October 2014 |
|
Uncorroborated statements and procedural defects (delay, assessors' exclusion) created reasonable doubt; conviction quashed.
Criminal law – admissibility and weight of cautioned statements – trial-with-assessors requirement (s.265 CPA) – extra-judicial/confessional statements and need for corroboration – voluntariness where torture alleged and delay before court (s.32(2) CPA) – prosecution’s duty to call material witnesses; adverse inference.
|
22 October 2014 |
|
Court upheld conviction, finding visual identification reliable due to prolonged close struggle and corroborating evidence.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Waziri Amani factors: duration, proximity, lighting and prior knowledge; corroboration by witnesses and police evidence; conviction for armed robbery upheld.
|
21 October 2014 |
|
Appeal dismissed: identification and penetration proved; procedural date variance and missing non‑eyewitnesses immaterial.
Criminal law – Rape: proof of penetration (s.130(4) Penal Code) and corroboration by medical evidence; Identification: familiar witness and contemporaneous torch-assisted ID; Evidence Act: no fixed number of witnesses (s.143) and where failure to call non‑eyewitnesses does not attract adverse inference; Criminal Procedure Act s.234(3) – variance in time immaterial; Burden of proof – remains on prosecution, presumption of innocence maintained.
|
21 October 2014 |
|
Preliminary hearing irregularity limited; defective ID parade expunged, but visual and circumstantial evidence upheld convictions and adjusted sentences.
Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing non-compliance with s.192(3) CPA vitiates only the preliminary hearing; Identification parade – PGO No.232 procedural breaches render parade evidence worthless; Visual identification – daylight identification and corroborative circumstantial evidence can prove identity beyond reasonable doubt; Sentencing – life sentence for rape of a person above ten may be excessive; Compensation – trial court may award compensation but appellate order for distress to enforce it unlawfully exceeded trial court's direction; Robbery – deprivation of property while committing rape with a weapon constitutes armed robbery.
|
20 October 2014 |
|
Armed robbery convictions quashed for inadequate visual identification and misapplied recent-possession doctrine.
* Criminal law – Visual identification – witness must describe conditions of observation, source and intensity of light, clothing, distance and duration of observation (Waziri Amani factors).
* Criminal law – Recent possession – prosecution must positively identify recovered property as the complainant's; common trade items without marks or serial numbers do not satisfy the requirement (Joseph Mkumbwa principles).
* Conviction – Where identification and recent-possession proof are inadequate, conviction and sentence must be quashed.
|
17 October 2014 |
|
The appellants' armed robbery convictions quashed due to defective charge and insufficient proof of recent possession.
Criminal law – armed robbery (s. 287A Penal Code) – particulars must disclose essential elements (threat/violence) – doctrine of recent possession – requirement of positive identification and intact chain of custody – discretion as to retrial where evidence is insufficient.
|
17 October 2014 |
|
Conviction for armed robbery unsafe where charge omitted essential elements and recent possession not proved by broken chain of custody.
* Criminal law – particulars of charge – essential elements – section 287A requires pleading the threat/violence element.
* Criminal law – doctrine of recent possession – requirements: property found with suspect, property proved to belong to complainant, property proved stolen, and recently stolen.
* Evidence – chain of custody – continuity and identification of recovered exhibit must be established.
* Procedure – retrial considerations where prosecution case deficient; conviction unsafe where reasonable doubt persists.
|
17 October 2014 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed for unsafe identification and inadequate descriptive corroboration to police.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night – Adequacy of lighting and description – Single eyewitness reliability – Immediate report to police without descriptive particulars insufficient to corroborate identification.
|
15 October 2014 |
| September 2014 |
|
|
Applicant's affidavit expunged for defective jurat; remaining affidavit failed to show "good cause" so extension denied.
* Civil procedure – Affidavits – Jurat must state place and date; failure to do so renders affidavit incurably defective under section 8 of the Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act. * Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 49(1): notices of motion may be supported by affidavits of other persons. * Rule 10: extension of time requires demonstration of "good cause" by satisfactory evidential reasons in the supporting affidavit.
|
19 September 2014 |
|
Extension to file review refused after applicant's affidavit was expunged for defective jurat and supporting affidavit failed to show good cause.
Extension of time — application for review — defective affidavit — jurat must state place of attestation per section 8 Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act — expungement of defective affidavit — Rule 49(1) affidavit by third party — requirement to show independent reasons/good cause under Rule 10.
|
19 September 2014 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for an extension to seek review; generalized claims of lost filings insufficient.
Criminal procedure — extension of time under Rule 10 — requirement to show good cause; review applications — grounds for review under Rule 66(1) — necessity to link excuse for delay to enumerated grounds; lost/misplaced registry documents — need for credible evidence (stamped filings or registry affidavits).
|
18 September 2014 |
|
An appeal is incompetent and must be struck out if mandatory trial exhibits are omitted from the record of appeal.
Civil procedure — Appeal competency — mandatory inclusion of trial exhibits in record of appeal — Rule 96(2) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — exclusion requires leave under Rule 96(3) — 14‑day cure under Rule 96(6) — failure to include exhibits is fatal to appeal.
|
18 September 2014 |
|
Delay by prison authorities amounted to good cause to extend time to file a notice of appeal for an incarcerated applicant.
Court of Appeal — extension of time under Rule 10 — notice of appeal — Rule 68 time limit — incarcerated appellants — delay by prison authorities as good cause — supporting affidavits and precedents.
|
18 September 2014 |
|
Preliminary hearing valid; non-compliant PF3 expunged; concurrent eyewitness evidence upheld conviction for robbery with violence.
Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing – compliance with s.192(3) CPA; Evidentiary law – medical report (PF3) – requirements of s.240(3) CPA and expungement if non-compliant; Proof of robbery with violence – weight of concurrent eyewitness evidence and red-handed arrest; Prosecution’s choice of witnesses – failure to call investigator not necessarily fatal; Appellate review – reluctance to disturb concurrent findings of fact.
|
17 September 2014 |
|
Concurrent factual findings upheld; defective PF3 expunged, but conviction for robbery with violence sustained.
* Criminal procedure – Preliminary Hearing – compliance with section 192(3) Criminal Procedure Act – memorandum read, explained and signed.
* Evidence – PF3 (medical form) – admissibility – non-compliance with section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – PF3 expunged.
* Criminal law – robbery with violence – proof of ingredients by complainant and independent witnesses – concurrent findings of fact upheld.
* Evidence – minor inconsistencies in witness accounts do not necessarily vitiate conviction where core facts are consistent.
* Prosecution discretion – choice of witnesses – failure to call investigator not fatal where case proved.
* Right to call witnesses – allegation of denial without contemporaneous record is an afterthought.
|
17 September 2014 |
|
Failure to institute an appeal within sixty days (and not seeking record or extension) deems the notice of appeal withdrawn.
* Civil procedure – Appeal procedure – Rule 90(1) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – time for instituting appeals and proviso excluding time for preparation of record. * Civil procedure – Enlargement of time – need to apply for extension where leave to appeal is pending. * Civil procedure – Effect of failure to institute appeal within prescribed time – Rule 91(a) deeming notice of appeal withdrawn and costs consequences. * Practice – Written submissions – compliance with Rule 106(2) requirements for stating material facts and issues.
|
17 September 2014 |
|
Failure to institute appeal within 60 days without applying for record or extension deems notice of appeal withdrawn.
* Civil procedure – Appeals – Rule 90(1) and proviso re: application for copy of High Court proceedings – requirement to apply in writing within 30 days to exclude time. * Civil procedure – Appeals – sixty-day limitation to institute appeal and Rule 91(a) consequence: deemed withdrawal of notice of appeal for failure to institute. * Civil procedure – Leave to appeal pending in High Court does not suspend sixty-day time limit; party should seek enlargement of time under the Rules. * Practice – Written submissions must state material facts and issues per Rule 106(2).
|
16 September 2014 |
|
A guilty plea confines appeal to sentence; mandatory life for rape of a child under ten upheld.
* Criminal law – guilty plea – scope of appeal limited to extent or legality of sentence – s.360(1) CPA. * Evidence – defects (PF3, blood proof) immaterial once accused pleads guilty and admits facts. * Criminal procedure – variance in dates curable under s.234(3) CPA. * Sentencing – mandatory life imprisonment for rape of child under ten – s.131(3) Penal Code.
|
16 September 2014 |
|
Court quashed committal for contempt where applicants were condemned unheard and registrar unlawfully varied the judge's order.
Contempt of court — requirement to frame and record substance of charge, read charge and call accused to show cause, right to be heard — variation of judicial order by District Registrar — limits of Registrar's powers under section 327 CPA — revisional jurisdiction under section 4(3) AJA — necessity to specify legal basis (eg. Penal Code s.114) when committing to imprisonment.
|
15 September 2014 |
|
Application for extension struck out because notices misstated the High Court judgment date, rendering the notice of appeal invalid.
Court of Appeal Rules – Form A and Form D – mandatory requirement to state correct date of High Court decision – invalid Notice of Appeal defeats jurisdiction to grant extension of time – defective notices incurably defective for purposes of extension application.
|
12 September 2014 |
|
An extension to apply for review requires good cause and an indication of which Rule 66(1) grounds the review will rely on.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules; * Review jurisdiction – Rule 66(1) – grounds for review (manifest error on face of record; deprivation of hearing; nullity; lack of jurisdiction; judgment procured illegally/fraud/perjury) – must be pleaded or shown at extension stage; * Review is not an appeal – proposed review must prima facie relate to Rule 66(1) grounds; * Review jurisdiction existed in case law before 2009 Rules.
|
11 September 2014 |
|
Application for extension struck out because defective notices cited an incorrect High Court judgment date, depriving jurisdiction.
Extension of time — Notice of Motion and Notice of Appeal must correctly state the date of the decision — Rule 48(2)/Form A and Rule 83(6)/Form D — invalid Notice of Appeal deprives Court of jurisdiction — defective notices not curable in present application.
|
10 September 2014 |
|
Omission of vital trial exhibits from the record renders an appeal incompetent and must be struck out.
Appeal procedure – record of appeal – Rule 96(1) mandatory inclusion of documents adduced at trial; failure to include vital exhibits renders appeal incompetent; supplementary record permissible only to add to a complete record; Rule 96(6) 14-day right to include omitted documents; incompetent appeal results in striking out appeal and dependent cross-appeal.
|
9 September 2014 |
|
Prison administrative failures (lack of typing resources) amounted to good cause to grant extension of time for filing review.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – "good cause" – discretion to enlarge time; affidavit by prison officer as competent support where applicants' affidavit expunged; prison administrative failures (scarcity of typing materials, single typewriter) as sufficient cause for delay.
|
8 September 2014 |
|
An incomplete record of appeal filed without leave renders the appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Civil procedure — Appeals — Record of appeal — Requirement to include trial court proceedings per Rule 96(2) — Exclusion of documents requires direction under Rule 96(3) — Remedy under Rule 96(6) to include omitted documents — Incomplete record renders appeal incompetent.
|
8 September 2014 |
|
Prisoners' delay caused by prison administrative constraints constituted good cause to grant extension of time to file review.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — "Good cause" requires evidential reasons — Prison officer's affidavit acceptable support under Rule 49(1) — Administrative constraints in custody (scarcity of stationery, single typewriter, delay in supply of judgment) can constitute good cause.
|
4 September 2014 |
|
Failure to expressly consider mitigating factors (guilty plea, time in custody) justified reducing the sentence from 15 to 9 years.
Criminal law — Sentencing — Requirement that trial court expressly state consideration of legitimate mitigating factors (e.g., guilty plea, pre-sentence custody) — Failure to do so creates doubt to be resolved in favour of appellant — Appellate interference and reduction of sentence.
|
4 September 2014 |
|
Court granted extension of time to file revision of CMA award and declined to entertain a time-bar objection where extension was sought.
* Labour procedure – Extension of time – Application for enlargement to file revision of CMA award – Granting extension where appropriate and preliminary objection inapt.* Civil procedure – Preliminary objections – Objection of time-bar raised despite pending extension application is unnecessary.* Scope of adjudication – Court will not determine substantive merits where affidavit only pleads extension of time.
|
3 September 2014 |
| August 2014 |
|
|
Prisoner’s late receipt of High Court decision due to prison administration constituted sufficient cause for extension of time.
Criminal procedure – Extension of time under Rule 10 – Delay in filing notice of appeal – Late communication of High Court decision to a prisoner beyond applicant’s control constitutes sufficient cause – Officer in-charge to comply with Rule 75(1).
|
12 August 2014 |
|
Application for security for costs struck out for wrong rule citation and lack of Court of Appeal jurisdiction over Labour Court execution.
Labour law – enforcement of Labour Court decrees; Court of Appeal jurisdiction – security for costs; procedural competency – wrong citation of Court of Appeal Rules (rule 38) and inapplicability of rule 120 where no civil appeal instituted; Rule 48(3) Labour Court Rules – execution may proceed despite intended appeal; preliminary objection – application struck out.
|
7 August 2014 |
|
Court struck out applicant's security-for-costs application for incompetence due to wrong rule citation and lack of jurisdiction.
Civil procedure — jurisdiction — Court of Appeal improperly moved; wrong citation of rules renders application incompetent; rule 120 (security in civil appeals) applies only after appeal is instituted; Labour Court Rules (r.48(3)) permit enforcement of decrees despite intended appeal.
|
7 August 2014 |
|
Court quashed High Court ruling that improperly combined leave to file a notice and leave to appeal in a land matter.
Land law — procedural compliance — leave to appeal in land matters must be sought under Section 47(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act; Appellate procedure — Section 11(1) AJA is for leave to file a notice of appeal; Irregular application combining different statutory prayers — Court may, under Section 4(2) AJA, quash the High Court ruling; Failure to observe Section 47(1) renders an appeal incompetent.
|
6 August 2014 |