|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2019 |
|
|
A second‑bite extension requires good cause under Rule 10; ignorance or human error alone is insufficient, but diligence justified extension.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Rule 10 (good cause) read with Rule 45A(1)(a) (second‑bite eligibility) — omission cured under Rule 48(1). 'Good cause' is fact‑specific; human error/ignorance of law alone is insufficient. Diligent pursuit of appeal (court follow‑ups) can justify extension.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Application for review dismissed: complaint about doctrine of recent possession was an appeal in disguise, not a manifest error.
Criminal procedure — Review of Court of Appeal decision — Scope limited to grounds in rule 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules. Review vs appeal — Manifest error on face of record (obvious/patent mistake) distinguishes reviewable errors from erroneous views on evidence which are grounds for appeal. Doctrine of recent possession — Complaint about application where ownership not established constitutes challenge to findings of fact and is not reviewable.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Armed robbery conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove theft and possession/use of knife beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – elements of offence: stealing and use/threat of weapon – requirement that stealing be proved beyond reasonable doubt; proof of possession/use of weapon and proper chain of custody for exhibits; appellate interference with concurrent findings where misapprehension of evidence causes miscarriage of justice.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Appellant proved sale and part-payment; transfer ordered subject to payment of the outstanding TZS 10,000,000 within 60 days.
Contract formation – sale of land – proof of agreement/execution of deed; offer and acceptance inferred from conduct at advocate's office and signed deed (Exhibit PI). Evidence – burden of proof in civil cases under section 110 Evidence Act; claimant must prove contract and fulfillment of obligations on balance of probabilities. Credibility – assessment primarily for trial court but appellate re-appraisal permitted under Rule 36(1)(a). Pleading – allegations of fraud require particulars (Order VI r.4) and higher proof; departure from pleadings unacceptable. Specific performance/transfer – transfer ordered subject to payment of outstanding purchase price within fixed time.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to account for delay and did not show good and sufficient cause for extension of time under section 38(1) LDCA.
Land law — Extension of time under section 38(1) Land Disputes Courts Act — Applicant must show good and sufficient cause and account for every day of delay; discretionary refusal will not be disturbed unless founded on wrong principle or misdirection; unsupported allegations of late supply of judgment require corroboration.
|
6 December 2019 |
|
Appellants' convictions quashed due to assessor misdirection, improperly admitted exhibits, predetermination, and insufficient evidence.
Criminal procedure — assessors’ summing-up — failure to direct on doctrine of recent possession; cautioned statement — voluntariness, certification, and trial within trial; admissibility — failure to read seizure certificate and improper exhibit identification; predetermination of guilt and fair trial; sufficiency of prosecution evidence and retrial discretion.
|
6 December 2019 |
|
Procedural misdirections, defective exhibits and unreliable witness evidence rendered the murder conviction unsafe; appeal allowed.
Criminal procedure – trial with assessors – duty to direct assessors on vital points of law – failure renders trial with assessors a nullity. Evidence – cautioned statements – certification requirements and trial-within-trial for voluntariness – inadmissibility if defective. Evidence – certificate of seizure – requirement to read contents after admission. Identification evidence – need for positive identification before invoking doctrine of recent possession. Fair trial – prohibition of pre-determinative rulings on guilt at close of prosecution case. Retrial – not ordered where prosecution evidence is insufficient and would be used to fill gaps.
|
6 December 2019 |
|
Review dismissed: no obvious error on the face of the record nor denial of hearing established by the applicants.
Criminal procedure — Review of Court of Appeal judgment under rule 66(1) AJA — scope of "manifest error on the face of the record"; Right to be heard — wrongful deprivation — requirement to prove supplementary grounds were lodged; Section 299 CPA — compliance considered on appeal; Review is not an appeal in disguise; Admissibility of cautioned statements, visual identification and recent possession — matters for appeal, not review.
|
5 December 2019 |
|
Procedural misdirections and defective exhibits rendered the trial unsafe; convictions quashed for insufficient evidence.
Criminal procedure — assessors’ directions — doctrine of recent possession — admissibility of exhibits (seizure certificate, clothing, cautioned statement) — trial-within-trial and voluntariness — predetermination of guilt — adequacy of prosecution evidence — retrial discretion.
|
5 December 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for delay; High Court's refusal to extend time affirmed.
Land law – appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal – extension of time under section 38(1) LDCA – discretion to extend time – requirement to show good and sufficient cause and account for each day of delay – proof when delay attributed to late supply of judgment – appellate interference standard (Mbogo).
|
4 December 2019 |
|
Applicant granted extension to apply for stay of execution due to excusable error and short, adequately explained delay.
Civil procedure — Extension of time under rule 10 — Judicial discretion and Lyamuya benchmarks (account for all delay; delay not inordinate; diligence). Procedural irregularity — Withdrawal of earlier application — excusable human error vs negligence. Stay of execution — timing under rule 11(4) and filing requirements. Illegality — must be apparent on record to justify extension.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
Appellant's cautioned statement, recent-possession and visual identification were inadequately proved; conviction quashed and appellant released.
Criminal law – confession – voluntariness – requirement for trial-within-trial when objection raised – failure to hear defence renders confession inadmissible. Criminal procedure – seizure and chain of custody – mandatory seizure/receipt requirement; absence undermines recent-possession inference. Evidence – doctrine of recent possession – elements: possession, positive identification, recency, and connection to charged offence. Evidence – visual identification – weakest form; identification parade and elimination of mistaken identity required. Appeals – first appellate duty to re-evaluate evidence; second appeal will interfere where misapprehension/misdirection causes miscarriage of justice.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
|
3 December 2019 |
|
Delayed service of a notice of appeal (beyond 14 days) is an essential default justifying striking out under rule 89(2).
Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules 2009, rr.84(1), 89(2) – Failure to serve copy of notice of appeal within 14 days – constitutes failure to take an essential step and nullifies notice of appeal. Rule 89(2) authorises striking out before or after institution of appeal. Delay in obtaining certified High Court records does not excuse non‑compliance with service requirement.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
The applicant's rape conviction upheld despite voir dire omission; child testimony corroborated and medical evidence admissible.
Criminal law – Rape – Evidence of child witnesses – voir dire omission not necessarily fatal; unsworn child evidence requires corroboration. Evidence – Corroboration – sworn testimony of another witness and medical evidence can corroborate unsworn child testimony. Medical evidence – Clinical officer competent to examine and give oral evidence; PF3 is not substantive evidence. Appeal procedure – Grounds not raised and decided in lower court will not be entertained on appeal. Credibility – Remote or fanciful possibilities do not displace solid, corroborated evidence.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
Appellant's conviction upheld: omission to conduct voir dire not fatal where child testimony and medical evidence were corroborative.
Criminal law – Rape – Evidence of child witness and voir dire – Omission to conduct voir dire not fatal where unsworn child evidence is corroborated; corroboration by a sworn older child permissible. Medical evidence – Clinical officer competent to give oral evidence of physical findings; PF3 not substantive if author testifies. Appeal – Fanciful possibilities cannot displace strong, corroborated prosecution case.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
Omission of voir dire not fatal where unsworn child evidence was corroborated by other competent testimony.
Criminal law – Rape; Evidence – child witness, voir dire and unsworn testimony; Corroboration by other witnesses; Medical evidence – PF3 and clinical officer competence; Appellate review – inadmissible/new grounds not considered.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
Night-time single-witness identification and unexplained arrest delay undermined convictions; s226 trial in absence was valid.
Criminal law - armed robbery; visual identification - single witness at night; recognition evidence; Waziri Amani guidelines; section 226 CPA - trial in absence after escape; unexplained delay in arrest.
|
3 December 2019 |