|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2010 |
|
|
Alleged trial illegality on the face of the record can justify extending time to appeal despite long delay.
* Criminal procedure — Extension of time under s.361(2) CPA — discretion to admit appeal — need for adequate explanation of delay.
* Illegality on the face of the record — non-compliance with ss.230 (no-case-to-answer ruling) and 231 (rights before defence) CPA — may constitute good cause for extension.
* Court of Appeal — power to substitute High Court decision and grant extension to facilitate investigation of alleged trial irregularities.
|
6 November 2010 |
| June 2010 |
|
|
A record omitting original pleadings is defective and a written statement of defence filed after statutory time is void, vitiating subsequent proceedings.
Civil procedure – Record of appeal – omission of original plaint and written statement of defence – mandatory inclusion in record; Time limits – Order VIII r.2 Civil Procedure Code – written statement of defence and statutory extension – strict compliance required; Judicial jurisdiction – trial judge’s purported extension beyond statutory period void; Effect of out-of-time defence – expungement and vitiation of subsequent proceedings; Appellate discretion – limitations on invoking Rules 2 and 4 to cure mandatory procedural requirements.
|
19 June 2010 |
|
|
18 June 2010 |
|
Appeal struck out as incompetent because leave was granted without extension and the application was improperly cited.
Appellate procedure; leave to appeal and extension of time; defective citation of statute renders application incompetent; revisional jurisdiction to nullify lower court proceedings; incompetent appeal amounts to no appeal.
|
18 June 2010 |
|
Reported
Appellant’s conviction for armed robbery upheld on sufficient identification despite expunged testimony due to counsel’s absence.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – sufficiency of identification evidence – identification by driver, victim who knew accused, and corroboration by co‑accused. * Right to defence – adjournment required when accused’s counsel absent – failure may require expunging affected testimony. * Conduct (flight) as corroborative evidence of guilt. * Appellate interference with concurrent factual findings only on misdirection or non‑direction.
|
17 June 2010 |
|
|
17 June 2010 |
|
|
16 June 2010 |
|
Appellate court reduced sentence by five years to credit remand time; otherwise upheld the eighteen-year sentence as not excessive.
* Criminal law – Sentencing – Credit for pre-trial custody – lengthy remand must be taken into account and may be deducted if not properly weighed by trial court.
* Criminal law – Manslaughter – mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender, remorse) versus aggravating brutality of the offence.
* Appellate review – Interference with sentencing discretion only where wrong principle applied or material factor overlooked.
|
16 June 2010 |
|
Appeal dismissed: visual identification at night upheld due to prior acquaintance, opportunity to observe and corroboration.
* Criminal law – Visual identification – Guidelines in Waziri Amani; night-time identification not automatically unsafe where opportunity, prior acquaintance and corroboration dispel mistake; failure to recover stolen property or produce described clothing affects weight not admissibility.
|
16 June 2010 |
|
Pre-trial custody must be credited in sentencing; brutality justified substantial term, reduced by five years to 13 years.
* Criminal law – Sentencing – Credit for time spent in lawful custody awaiting trial – Trial courts must take such periods into account; appellate interference appropriate if not evident. * Manslaughter – Mitigation: first offender, guilty plea, provocation; Aggravation: brutality of attack and burning. * Appellate review – Exercise of sentencing discretion upheld unless wrong principle applied or material factor ignored.
|
14 June 2010 |
|
Convictions quashed where visual identification was unsafe due to inadequate proof of lighting, observation and unexplained arrest delay.
Criminal law – Visual identification and recognition evidence – necessity for clear proof of lighting, duration and circumstances of observation – unexplained delay in arrest and lack of independent witnesses undermining credibility – convictions quashed where identification not watertight.
|
14 June 2010 |
|
Denial of cross-examination and inconsistent, uncogent evidence rendered the conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and appellant released.
* Criminal law – Unnatural offence – requirement to prove date and elements beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in prosecution evidence may render conviction unsafe; corroboration needed.
* Evidence – Child witness – section 127(7) Evidence Act; necessity to inquire into competency before receiving evidence; right to cross-examine critical.
* Procedure – Right to cross-examination – section 229 Criminal Procedure Act; denial constitutes incurable irregularity vitiating trial.
* Remedy – Quashing conviction and sentence; no retrial where evidence is not cogent.
|
14 June 2010 |
|
Appellant's rape conviction quashed for denial of right to cross-examine, null proceedings and unreliable prosecution evidence; release ordered.
Criminal law; fair trial — right to cross-examine witnesses (s.229 CPA; s.147 Evidence Act) — unlawful re-examination; trial nullity; admission of PF3 (s.240(3) CPA); inconsistencies and delay in reporting; retrial vs release in interests of justice.
|
14 June 2010 |
|
Night-time identification upheld where witness knew accused, had sustained observation and corroborative description.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Application of Waziri Amani factors; Night-time identification where witness had prior acquaintance and prolonged observation; Failure to recover stolen property affects weight not admissibility; Omission to specify lamp type not fatal where other factors dispel reasonable doubt.
|
14 June 2010 |
|
Weak identification, unproven recent possession and improper documentary proof made the conviction unsafe.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – contradictions, failure to produce identification parade register and absence of parade conductor’s testimony render identification unsafe; * Criminal law – alibi – court may consider alibi despite non-compliance with s.194 CPA but must critically assess it; * Evidence – documentary evidence requires primary proof (hospital register/certified copy) under Evidence Act, secondary oral contradiction insufficient; * Criminal law – recent possession – cannot be invoked where possession and knowledge are not proved and witness evidence is self‑contradictory; * Jurisdiction – Resident Magistrate’s Court established for a region has jurisdiction over offences committed within that region.
|
14 June 2010 |
|
Court upheld rape convictions, found charging irregularity curable, and reduced each sentence to 30 years.
* Criminal law – Rape – Adult complainant’s testimony may suffice to prove penetration and lack of consent without medical evidence. * Evidence – Identification at night by bright light and corroboration by another witness uphold credibility. * Procedure – Charging under Sexual Offences Act in pari materia with Penal Code; irregularity curable under s.388 CPA if no prejudice. * Sentence – Appellate reduction of illegal custodial sentence under appellate jurisdiction.
|
12 June 2010 |
|
|
11 June 2010 |
|
Extra-judicial and cautioned confessions, corroborated by conduct and DNA, upheld; common intention found and appeals dismissed.
* Criminal law – admissibility of extra-judicial statements – voluntariness and magistrate's role; * Criminal procedure – cautioned statements – compliance with s.57(3) and consequences of procedural defects; * Evidence – corroboration of confessions by conduct leading to discovery and lies; * Forensic evidence – DNA as corroborative, not necessarily sole basis for conviction; * Criminal law – common intention and joint liability for murder.
|
11 June 2010 |
|
Conviction quashed for denial of cross-examination and for inconsistent, non-cogent prosecution evidence.
Criminal procedure — right to cross-examine — failure to allow cross-examination vitiates trial (s.229 CPA); Evidence — child witness — admission without proper inquiry and capacity concerns; Evidence — requirement to prove charge particulars (date) and to adduce cogent, consistent, corroborated evidence; Inconsistencies and lack of police corroboration may raise reasonable/genuine doubt; No retrial where prosecution evidence is not cogent.
|
10 June 2010 |
|
Conviction quashed for denial of right to cross‑examine and inconsistent, implausible prosecution evidence; no retrial ordered.
Criminal law – Rape – Fair trial – Denial of right to cross‑examine under section 229 Criminal Procedure Act and Article 13(6)(a) – Re‑examination irregular under section 147 Evidence Act – Inconsistent prosecution evidence and delay in reporting – Discretion to order retrial and effect of time served.
|
10 June 2010 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification and possession evidence were unreliable and alibi/documentary proof was improperly handled.
Criminal law – identification evidence – contradictions, failure to produce identification parade register and absence of parade witness render identification unsafe; Criminal procedure – jurisdiction – Resident Magistrate's Court established under s.5 has regional jurisdiction covering districts in that region; Evidence – alibi notice (s.194) and trial court's discretion to call witnesses under s.195; Documentary evidence – primary evidence required to prove or contradict documents (Evidence Act); Doctrine of recent possession – requires proof of possession and knowledge, cannot rest on suspicion alone.
|
10 June 2010 |
|
Failure to comply with Rule 61(2) by misdescribing the appeal target renders the appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Court of Appeal Rules 1979 — Rule 61(1) and 61(2) mandatory requirements for notices of appeal — notice must state nature of the order sought to be appealed — defective notice fails to institute appeal — incompetence and striking out — appeal against High Court ruling on extension of time must be correctly described.
|
9 June 2010 |
|
A notice of appeal must correctly describe the order appealed against; otherwise the appeal is incompetent and struck out.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal – Requirement under Rule 61(2) (1979 Court of Appeal Rules) to state the nature of the order appealed against – Inaccurate description renders notice incurably defective and appeal incompetent. * Application for extension of time – appealability – where High Court dismisses application under section 361 Criminal Procedure Act the notice must so state.
|
9 June 2010 |
|
A notice of appeal that fails to specify the order appealed against renders the applicant's appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Appeal procedure – Notice of appeal – Rule 61(2) Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 – Notice must state nature of order appealed – Defective notice renders appeal incompetent – Appeal struck out with liberty to re‑institute; Abatement on death under Rule 78(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
|
7 June 2010 |
|
A defective notice of appeal that fails to identify the order appealed against breaches Rule 61(2) and renders the appeal incompetent.
* Appellate procedure – Notice of appeal – Requirement under Rule 61(2) to state nature of the order appealed against – Non‑compliance renders notice incurably defective – Appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out. * Extension of time – Appeal against dismissal of application – Notice must identify the High Court ruling appealed.
|
7 June 2010 |
|
Non‑compliance with s240(3) CrPC and failure to prove penetration led to quashing of the rape conviction and substitution for sexual harassment.
Criminal procedure – non-compliance with section 240(3) CrPC – medical report admitted without offering accused right to summon author – report discounted; Evidence – rape requires proof of penetration by the complainant (adult); Evidence of child witness – section 127(2) Evidence Act compliance; Substitution of conviction under section 300(1) CrPC – sexual harassment (s138D Penal Code).
|
7 June 2010 |
|
A defective notice failing to appeal the High Court order rendered the applicant's appeal incompetent and it was struck out.
* Appellate jurisdiction – requirement to institute appeals by lodging a compliant notice of appeal in the High Court registry – Rule 61(1) and (2) (now Rule 68) – notice must state the order, conviction, sentence or finding appealed against. * Competence of appeal – a defective notice that does not appeal the decision of the forum whose order is impugned renders the appeal incompetent. * Curative/discretionary powers – Court cannot cure absence of a properly instituted appeal; curative provisions apply only where a valid appeal exists.
|
7 June 2010 |
|
A second appellate court quashed convictions where prosecution evidence was contradictory, alibi not properly analysed, and medical report improperly admitted.
* Criminal law – evaluation of witness credibility on second appeal – when contradictions and improbabilities render prosecution case unsafe. * Criminal procedure – defence of alibi – court taking cognisance of unnotified alibi must critically analyse and give reasons for rejection. * Criminal procedure – admissibility of medical reports – non‑compliance with section 240(3) (right to call/cross‑examine report maker) renders report valueless. * Convictions may be quashed where evidence is misapprehended or insufficient to support verdict.
|
7 June 2010 |
|
Convictions quashed where contradictory evidence, inadequate analysis of alibi and PF3 procedural breach rendered prosecution case unsafe.
Criminal law – Attempted rape and grievous harm – evaluation of credibility and material contradictions – duty to analyse unnotified alibi and give reasons for rejecting it – admissibility of medical report (PF3) and requirement under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act to inform accused of right to summon maker – second appeal reassessment where lower courts misapprehended evidence.
|
7 June 2010 |
|
A notice of appeal failing to state the nature of the order appealed breaches Rule 61(2) and renders the appeal incompetent.
* Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Compliance with Rule 61(2) Court of Appeal Rules 1979 – Notice must state briefly the nature of the order or finding appealed against; non‑compliance renders the notice incurably defective and the appeal incompetent. * Civil/criminal appeals – appeal instituted by notice – defective notice leads to striking out with possible liberty to re‑institute.
|
5 June 2010 |
|
An appeal is incompetent and struck out where the notice fails to institute an appeal against the High Court's order.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Criminal appeals – Notice of appeal must be lodged in the High Court and must state the order appealed against – Rule 61(1) & (2) (now Rule 68) – Consequence of defective notice – incompetence and striking out of appeal – Court cannot cure absence of an appeal by departing from the Rules.
|
5 June 2010 |
|
Non-compliance with s240(3) and failure to prove penetration led to rape conviction quashed and substituted for sexual harassment.
Criminal law - Evidentiary procedure: non-compliance with s240(3) (medical report) renders PF3 inadmissible; Criminal law - Rape: prosecution must lead specific evidence of penetration by victim; Evidence law - child witness: s127(2) compliance required before testimony is relied upon; Criminal procedure - s300(1) substitution: court may convict for lesser offence (sexual harassment s138D) when rape not proved.
|
4 June 2010 |
|
Appellant’s convictions quashed due to contradictory evidence, inadequate analysis of alibi, and improper admission of medical report.
Criminal law – evaluation of credibility and inter‑witness contradictions; defence of alibi – duty to analyse unnotified alibi (s.194 CPA); admissibility of medical report (PF3) – compliance with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act; scope of second appeal to interfere with concurrent findings of fact.
|
4 June 2010 |
|
Armed robbery conviction quashed for failure to prove violence; substituted conviction for theft and immediate release ordered.
Criminal law – Robbery and armed robbery – essential element: use or threat of actual violence – proof must show violence to person or property; unlinked gunshots insufficient. Doctrine of recent possession – constructive possession and admissions may support theft conviction. Criminal Procedure Act s.300(1) – substitution of conviction where original offence not proved but facts establish lesser offence. Sentence – consideration of time served and remorse in imposing substituted sentence.
|
4 June 2010 |
|
Weak night identification was outweighed by recent possession when stolen items were found in the appellant's house.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night; Waziri Amani principles; Doctrine of recent possession – recovery of stolen property from accused’s premises shortly after offence; Appellate review – deference to concurrent findings of fact.
|
3 June 2010 |
|
Where firearm use was not proved, armed robbery conviction was quashed and substituted with theft, resulting in immediate release.
Criminal law – Robbery and armed robbery – Essential element: use or threat of actual violence – Evidence must link firearm use to the theft; absence of cartridges or corroboration may defeat robbery charge – Accused’s admissions can support conviction for lesser offence – Substitution of conviction under s.300(1) Criminal Procedure Act.
|
2 June 2010 |
|
The applicant’s death while the appeal was pending caused the appeal to abate under Rule 78(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Effect of death of appellant while appeal pending – Appeal abates under Rule 78(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
|
2 June 2010 |
|
Primary Court lacked jurisdiction to try attempted rape; lower courts' proceedings were quashed and the appellant ordered released.
* Criminal law – Jurisdiction of Primary Courts – Magistrates' Courts Act, s.18(1)(c) and First Schedule – attempt to rape not within Primary Court jurisdiction.
* Criminal procedure – proceedings and convictions from a court lacking jurisdiction are nullities and subject to being quashed.
* Appellate powers – s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – quashing of proceedings and orders.
* Remedy – retrial vs. release where prolonged detention and weak evidence render retrial unjust.
|
2 June 2010 |
|
Primary Court lacked jurisdiction to try attempted rape; convictions quashed and appellant released due to unsafe evidence and long detention.
• Criminal procedure – jurisdiction of Primary Courts – First Schedule to Magistrates' Courts Act – attempted rape not listed; Primary Court lacked jurisdiction.
• Nullity – proceedings and convictions from a court without jurisdiction are nullities and may be quashed under Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2).
• Retrial – court may refuse retrial where prolonged detention and unsafe evidence make retrial contrary to justice.
|
2 June 2010 |
|
Weak nighttime identification was outweighed by recent possession of stolen property recovered from the appellant's premises, so appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Identification: night-time identification by a single witness aided only by moonlight is weak; court must consider proximity, light source and duration.
* Criminal law – Recent possession: recovery of stolen property from accused's premises shortly after theft, without reasonable explanation, supports conviction.
* Evidence – Allegations of grudges do not outweigh direct recovery of stolen items and failure to explain possession.
|
1 June 2010 |
|
Appeal improperly struck out where notice and petition were filed within statutory time, excluding time to obtain copies.
Criminal procedure – appeal – notice of intention to appeal – time limits – s.361(1)(b) exclusion of time to obtain copies – s.363 transmission of petition from prison – striking out appeal for delay.
|
1 June 2010 |