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.
10 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
10 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
October 2015
Allowing assessors to cross-examine witnesses creates apparent bias and vitiates the trial, requiring retrial.
* Criminal procedure – Role of assessors – assessors may put questions under s.177 Evidence Act but must not cross-examine witnesses; cross-examination by assessors creates appearance of bias. * Fair trial – rule against bias – Article 13(6)(a) Constitution – assessment of incurable irregularity. * Appellate revisional powers – s.4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – quashing proceedings and ordering retrial.
16 October 2015
Omission to cite Rule 48 is harmless if the enabling rule is cited and procedural requirements are substantially complied with.
Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 125(1) (enabling rule) — Rule 48(1) (prescribing procedural rule); distinction between enabling and prescribing rules; substantial compliance with procedural requirements; preliminary objection on non-citation of procedural rule dismissed.
13 October 2015
The appellant's defences of insanity and provocation failed; murder conviction and death sentence upheld.
Criminal law – Murder – Elements proved by eyewitness and post-mortem evidence; Defence of insanity – timing of raising the defence at plea-taking (s.219) and court's power to order medical examination (s.220); Provocation – objective test and premeditation/ concealment of weapon negating loss of self-control; Role of assessors in confirming intent.
12 October 2015
Failure to read cautioned statements to assessors and misdirection on provocation nullified the trial; retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – cautioned (confession) statements – after admissibility ruling statements must be read aloud in open court for assessors to assess weight. * Criminal procedure – trial with assessors – judge’s duty to direct assessors on vital points of law (provocation, cautioned statements); misdirection/omission amounts to miscarriage of justice. * Retrial – when ordered after nullification of trial; exercise of revisional power under s.4(2) AJA.
12 October 2015
Assessor cross‑examination breached fair‑trial rights; convictions quashed and retrial ordered before a different judge and assessors.
* Evidence Act – Sections 146 and 155 – order and limits of examination, cross‑examination and re‑examination; assessors’ role limited to assisting the judge and asking questions under section 177. * Constitutional law – right to a fair trial (Art.13(6)(a)) – impartial tribunal and rule against bias; assessor cross‑examination causes apparent partiality. * Criminal procedure – irregularity of assessor cross‑examination is fundamental and not curable under s.388 CPA; remedy is revision under s.4(3) AJA, quashing conviction and ordering retrial.
9 October 2015
Confession admitted without inquiry and visual identification unreliable; conviction for robbery quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – robbery with violence; admissibility of cautioned/confession statements – requirement for inquiry/trial-within-trial when voluntariness is challenged; visual identification – need to eliminate possibilities of mistaken identity, importance of prior description and identification parade, dock identification unreliable.
8 October 2015
Conviction for statutory rape quashed where child-witness voir dire and proper admission of exhibits were omitted.
Evidence Act s127 – competency of child witness and necessity of voir dire; child witness (apparent age ≤14) evidence must be tested before oath or else be discounted; statutory rape – prosecution must prove victim’s age; Criminal Procedure Act s240(3) – proper admissibility of PF3; cautioned statements require opportunity for accused to comment; non-compliance with these provisions renders conviction unsafe.
6 October 2015
An application for review cannot be used to re-argue credibility, identification or evidential weight—review is confined to narrow Rule 66(1) grounds.
* Criminal procedure — Review of judgment — Scope of review limited to Rule 66(1) grounds — Not an appeal in disguise. * Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — Rule 66(1) — manifest error on the face of the record; deprivation of opportunity to be heard. * Criminal evidence — Challenges to identification, chain of custody and witness enmity are appellate issues, not review grounds.
5 October 2015
Succession of magistrates without recorded reasons under s.214(1) vitiates trial and appellate proceedings; fine refunded.
Criminal procedure – change of trial magistrate – s.214(1) Criminal Procedure Act requires recording reasons for successor magistrate taking over; failure vitiates proceedings and appellate decision; notice of appeal – substantial compliance with Court of Appeal Rules/Form B; revision powers under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act; refund of fines where conviction rests on null proceedings.
2 October 2015
Credible parental testimony can prove victim's age; consent irrelevant for rape of a person under eighteen.
Criminal law – Rape – proof of age – parental testimony sufficient where credible – consent immaterial for girls under eighteen (s.130(2)(e) Penal Code) – no absolute need for medical evidence to prove age.
1 October 2015