|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2006 |
|
|
An improperly dated decree is invalid and its absence renders an appeal (and related cross-appeal) incompetent.
* Civil procedure — Decree must bear date of judgment — Order XXIII Rule 7, Civil Procedure Decree (Cap 8) — Invalid decree renders appeal incompetent.
* Appeal competence — Record must contain decree or order — Rule 89(1)(h), Court of Appeal Rules, 1979.
* Procedure — Supplementary record filed after objection does not cure defect of invalid/missing decree.
* Cross-appeal — Incompetent where main appeal is struck out.
* Costs — No order as to costs where court raises point suo motu.
|
17 November 2006 |
|
Failure to prove the appellant instigated prosecution or caused withdrawal defeats malicious prosecution claim.
Malicious prosecution — requirement to prove complainant instigated prosecution — burden of proof on claimant — necessity of adducing police/prosecutor evidence when alleging complainant caused arrest or withdrawal of charges.
|
17 November 2006 |
(From the judgment and decree of the High Court of Zanzibar at Vuga, Mshibe Ali Bakari, J., dated 29 June 2004 in Civil Case number 49 of 2003)
Family Law - Divorce - Divorce according to Shia Moslems - Procedure of pronouncing talak - Effect of failure to follow Shia procedure.
Family Law - Damages - Damages for harassment - Proper Court to assess the damages - Guiding principles in assessing damages. |
17 November 2006 |
From the Judgment of the High Court of Zanzibar at Vuga, Mbarouk, J., dated 12 May 2005, Criminal Appeal number 19 of 2004. Evidence - Exhibits - Mishandling of exhibits - Exhibits alleged to be dangerous drugs held and not accounted for by the prosecution for five days - Whether charge of possession of dangerous drugs proved beyond a reasonable doubt. |
17 November 2006 |
|
Unexplained gaps in chain of custody and non-compliance with police procedures created reasonable doubt, justifying acquittal.
Criminal law – Dangerous drugs – Possession – Importance of chain of custody and compliance with police exhibit-handling procedures; unexplained gaps in custody create reasonable doubt; appellate review of trial court's evaluation of evidence; confession not considered where not properly before the court.
|
17 November 2006 |
|
Failure to institute an appeal within time deems the notice of appeal withdrawn; no appeal exists to be struck out.
* Civil procedure – Appeal procedure – Rule 83(1) (institution of appeal within 60 days) and Rule 84(a) (deemed withdrawal where no essential steps taken) – Notice of Appeal deemed withdrawn for failure to institute appeal; preliminary objection upheld.
|
17 November 2006 |
(From the judgment and decree of the High Court of Zanzibar at Vuga, Kihio, J., dated 25 March 2004 in Civil Case number 33 of 2003) Civil Practice and Procedure - Burden of Proof- Malicious Prosecution - Respondents failed to marshal strong and reliable evidence in the Trial Court to prove that appellant had maliciously prosecuted them - Whether the Trial Court was entitled to find in favour of the respondents. |
17 November 2006 |
|
An appeal filed before the High Court delivers reserved reasons is premature and must be struck out; record remitted for reasons.
* Criminal appeals – appellate record – requirement that High Court judgment (reasons) be included in record of appeal; * Procedural law – premature appeal – appeal struck out where judgment lacking; * Court rules – Rule 64(4) (record contents) and Rule 3(2)(a) (striking out) – effect of reserved reasons; * Practice – registry irregularities and validity of notice of appeal; * Remedies – remittal to trial judge to deliver reserved reasons with dispatch.
|
17 November 2006 |
|
An appeal is premature and must be struck out where the lower court pronounced a decision but reserved reasons, leaving no judgment in the record.
Appellate procedure – judgment and reserved reasons – a judge’s reserved reasons constitute the judgment required in the record of appeal; appeal filed before delivery of reasons is premature; appeal struck out and record remitted to trial appellate judge to deliver reasons.
|
17 November 2006 |
|
Under Shia Ithnaasheri law a valid talak requires specific oral procedure and witnesses; absence renders the divorce invalid.
* Family law — Divorce (talak) — Validity under Shia Ithnaasheri law — Requirement of oral pronouncement to the wife and presence of two just witnesses; Sunni procedure not determinative for Shia parties. * Evidence — Credibility and presence of witnesses; necessity of corroboration for assault allegations. * Remedies — Restoration or value of unlawfully taken property; general damages for deprivation of conjugal rights; maintenance quantum to be determined in trial court. * Costs — partial award of taxed costs.
|
17 November 2006 |
|
|
17 November 2006 |
From the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Zanzibar at Vuga, Mbarouk, 1., dated 1 March 2006, in Civil Appeal number 36 of 2005) |
17 November 2006 |
|
A regional magistrate with extended jurisdiction cannot sit as the High Court; resulting proceedings are nullities.
Jurisdiction – Regional Magistrate with extended jurisdiction – cannot sit as High Court judge unless appointed as Judge or Acting Judge under the Constitution; proceedings and judgment given by such magistrate purporting to be High Court are nullities; competence of stay of execution requires citing Rule 9(2)(b) Court of Appeal Rules; single judge of Court of Appeal cannot itself nullify High Court proceedings.
|
17 November 2006 |
|
Omission of grounds in a Notice of Motion may be cured by disclosure in the supporting affidavit if no prejudice, permitting amendment.
* Civil procedure – Notice of Motion – Form A (First Schedule) – mandatory requirement to state grounds – substantial compliance where grounds disclosed in affidavit – amendment permissible where no prejudice. * Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 45 (Form of Notice) – non‑compliance curable; Rule 3(2)(a) – power to allow amendment.
|
17 November 2006 |
|
Application for extension denied for inordinate delay; single deponent’s affidavit insufficiently authorised for multiple applicants.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Application under Court of Appeal Rules – Supporting affidavit by one applicant for several others requires express authority or adoption – Grounds for extension are evidential and belong in affidavit – Inordinate delay (nine months) and lack of acceptable explanation justify refusal.
|
13 November 2006 |
|
A stay of execution was granted pending appeal because both parties acknowledged omissions and errors in the decree and balance of convenience favored suspension.
Stay of execution – interlocutory application – balance of convenience – decree alleged to contain omissions and errors – effect of prior admissions in affidavit – High Court jurisdiction after notice of appeal.
|
6 November 2006 |
| September 2006 |
|
|
Failure to serve required notices and written application for records nullifies appeal; strict compliance with appeal rules is mandatory.
* Civil procedure – Appeal procedure – Service of notices of appeal – Non-compliance with Rule 77(1) nullifies affected notices of appeal.
* Civil procedure – Time for instituting appeal – Rule 83(1) exception requires a written application for copies of proceedings served on respondents; failure to serve bars reliance on the exception.
* Civil procedure – Strict compliance – Right of appeal is statutory and requires strict adherence to procedural rules; Court will not cure such defects via Rule 3(2)(b) in absence of extension application.
|
13 September 2006 |
| March 2006 |
|
(From the decision of the Regional magistrate’s Court of Zanzibar at Vuga, Mwampashi, SRM, Extended Jurisdiction, dated 15 February 2005 in Criminal Application no. 2 of 2005) Criminal Law -Armed Robbery - Whether there is an offence of “armed robbery " -sections 285 and 286(2) of the Penal Act, 2004 [Z], Criminal Practice and Procedure - Revision — Whether revision can be resorted to where there is a right of appeal — section 2(3) of the Appellate e Jurisdiction Act, 1979 |
16 March 2006 |
| January 2006 |
|
|
A transfer grounded on disciplinary findings without affording the employee a hearing is unlawful.
* Administrative law – Civil service transfers – Distinguishing ordinary transfers under Civil Service Regulations (Reg. 33) from disciplinary transfers; application of audi alteram partem where transfer is based on allegations affecting employee's reputation.
* Natural justice – Right to be heard – Breach vitiates disciplinary measures including transfers motivated by misconduct findings.
* Evidence – Reliance on Special Committee report and Hansard; de facto service commission actions cannot bypass procedural fairness.
|
1 January 2006 |