|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2010 |
|
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause to restore a dismissed appeal under Rule 72(5); application dismissed.
Court of Appeal — Restoration of dismissed appeal — Rule 72(5) Courts Rules, 2009 — Requirement to show sufficient cause; Delay excuses — lack of legal aid and unavailability of prison officer; Necessity of supporting affidavit or evidence; Credibility affected where appeal was prosecuted by learned advocates.
|
29 November 2010 |
|
Application for stay dismissed because no subsisting judgment or decree existed to be stayed.
Civil procedure - Stay of execution - requirement of an existing judgment or decree to stay; preliminary objection resulting in dismissal; Rule 11(2)(b)-(e) Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
|
26 November 2010 |
|
Application for leave to file appeal out of time dismissed as misconceived and abusive for lacking required leave.
* Appellate procedure – requirement of leave under s.5(1)(c) where appeal originates from a Regional Court – distinction between leave to appeal out of time and extension of time to apply for leave to appeal – procedural competence and abuse of process.
|
26 November 2010 |
|
Proceedings before a magistrate without a valid transfer by the Chief Justice are null and void; retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – jurisdiction of magistrate with extended jurisdiction – assignment of cases to magistrates vested in Chief Justice – invalid transfer by unauthorized judge vitiates jurisdiction.
* Criminal procedure – nullity – proceedings conducted without lawful jurisdiction are null and void ab initio and incurable.
* Drugs offences – procedural competence – retrial ordered where trial court lacked lawful authority.
|
26 November 2010 |
|
A trial before a magistrate without lawful transfer of jurisdiction is null and void; retrial ordered.
Jurisdiction — invalid transfer of case to magistrate with extended jurisdiction — proceedings null and void ab initio — fatal jurisdictional error — retrial ordered.
|
26 November 2010 |
|
Union Arms Act applies to Zanzibar; expert proof by experience acceptable; possession suffices for firearm conviction.
Constitutional law – Union matters – Arms and Ammunition Act applicability to Zanzibar; Evidence – expert testimony admissible based on experience as well as formal qualifications; Criminal law – unlawful possession of firearm requires proof of possession, not a named complainant; Appellate review – trial court credibility findings entitled to deference; Sentencing – sentence not manifestly excessive for unlawful possession of lethal weapon.
|
25 November 2010 |
|
Union arms law applies in Zanzibar; ballistics expert evidence admissible; unlawful possession conviction upheld.
* Constitutional/Union law – applicability of Union Arms and Ammunition Act to Zanzibar – Articles 4(3) and 64(4) and section 2 of the Act; * Evidence – expert opinion in ballistics admissible on basis of training and experience, not confined to gazetted experts; * Criminal law – unlawful possession of firearm requires proof of possession only, absence of complainant immaterial; * Appeals – appellate deference to trial court credibility findings; * Sentencing – appellate court will not interfere where sentence is not manifestly excessive.
|
25 November 2010 |
|
Trial was nullified for failure to advise accused of right to recall witnesses after amendment; no retrial ordered due to missing audit evidence.
* Criminal procedure – amendment/substitution of charge mid‑trial – requirement under s.218(3) to inform accused of right to recall witnesses and allow further cross‑examination.
* Evidence – documentary evidence and audit reports must be tendered to substantiate charges of false accounting; absence may preclude retrial.
* Remedy – non‑compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards renders trial a nullity; retrial not ordered where prosecution evidence is lacking.
|
25 November 2010 |
|
Failure to inform accused of s218(3) right to recall witnesses nullifies trial; no retrial without primary audit evidence.
Criminal procedure – Amendment of charge – section 218(3) C.P.C. – duty to inform accused of right to recall/re-cross-examine witnesses – failure renders trial a nullity; Evidence – documentary audit report not tendered – absence of primary evidence may preclude retrial.
|
25 November 2010 |
|
Conflicting witness descriptions made visual identification unreliable; appeal allowed and appellant ordered released.
* Criminal law – Visual identification – Evidence must be watertight before conviction; inconsistencies in witness descriptions and absence of contemporaneous description undermine identification. * Identification parade – Cannot cure defects where preconditions for reliable identification are not established. * Benefit of doubt – Appellant entitled to release where identification is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
25 November 2010 |
|
Application to restore dismissed appeal struck out for missing dismissal order, wrong registry filing without urgency certificate, and late filing.
* Civil procedure – restoration of appeal – requirement to attach relevant documents (dismissal order) when applying for restoration. * Civil procedure – locus and filing – Rule 51 (2009 Rules) requires applications be lodged in appropriate registry unless supported by a certificate of urgency. * Time limits – Rule 105(3) (1979 Rules) – restoration applications must be filed within thirty days; failure to seek leave for late filing is fatal. * Procedural compliance – non‑compliance renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out with costs.
|
25 November 2010 |
| October 2010 |
|
|
A defence‑related claim filed after the six‑month statutory period was time‑barred, rendering lower courts’ proceedings nullities.
National Defence Act s.63 – Limitation of actions – Six‑month time limit for suits arising from acts under the Act – Time‑bar renders proceedings a nullity; Limitation preferred to jurisdictional enquiry.
|
22 October 2010 |
| March 2010 |
|
|
Failure to sum up to assessors rendered the appellant’s trial defective and required a retrial before another judge.
* Criminal procedure – Assessors – Failure of trial judge to sum up to assessors – not cured by s.394(1)(a) – constitutes illegal/defective trial – retrial ordinarily required.
* Assessors – procedural requirements: selection and objection, numbering, explanation of role, opportunity to question witnesses with recorded answers, summing up of facts and law, and recording individual opinions.
* Remedy – retrial before a different judge where summing up omission occurred.
|
2 March 2010 |
|
Appeal allowed: dismissal unsupported by admissible evidence and judge failed to justify disagreement with assessor.
* Labour law – wrongful dismissal – employer must prove misconduct; annexures to pleadings are not evidence. * Evidence – documentary evidence must be tendered and admitted; absence of direct or reliable circumstantial evidence cannot sustain dismissal. * Procedure – assessor opinions: presiding judge must record assessor's opinion and reasons for disagreement (s.83(5), Labour Relations Act). * Civil procedure – judgment contents: Order XXIII Rule 3(2) requirements (case statement, points, decision, reasons).
|
1 March 2010 |
| February 2010 |
|
|
Dismissal for non-appearance upheld, but ex parte judgment quashed for relying on annexed, untendered documents.
Civil procedure — dismissal for non-appearance (Order XI, r.9); setting aside dismissal (Order XI, r.10); framing of issues — omission not fatal where real issues were litigated; annexures to pleadings not evidence unless tendered; appellate revision to expunge improperly received evidence and quash ex parte judgment.
|
12 February 2010 |
|
|
12 February 2010 |