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.
14 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
14 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
December 2012
The applicant's appeal lacked required leave, was struck out, and respondents awarded costs.
Appellate procedure — leave to appeal required for certain High Court orders — incompetence and striking out of appeal and notice of appeal — extension of time must first be sought in High Court — costs awarded for abortive appeal.
15 December 2012
An appeal without required leave is incompetent and must be struck out; extension of time must first be sought in the High Court.
* Civil procedure – Appealability – Leave required under section 11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 47 – Appeal incompetent without leave. * Civil procedure – Incompetent appeal – striking out appeal and accompanying notice of appeal. * Civil procedure – Extension of time to file notice of appeal – must be sought first in High Court; Court of Appeal may entertain only after High Court refusal. * Costs – award where appellant delayed and resisted a meritorious preliminary objection.
14 December 2012
Court exercised Rule 106(19) discretion to waive time limits and permit late written submissions in the interests of justice.
Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — Rule 106(1), (9) and (19) — timeliness of written submissions — Court's discretion to waive or reduce time limits in exceptional circumstances — interest of justice.
14 December 2012
Court exercised Rule 106(19) discretion to waive time limits, allowing late written submissions and overruling preliminary objection.
* Civil procedure – compliance with Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 106(1) and (9) – consequences of failing to file written submissions in time. * Civil procedure – residual discretion – Rule 106(19) permits waiver or reduction of time limits where circumstances are exceptional or hearing must be accelerated in the interest of justice. * Appeal procedure – preliminary objection on time bar – Court may overrule objection and grant extension where exceptional circumstances exist.
14 December 2012
Court exercised Rule 106(19) discretion to waive time limits and allowed late submissions in interest of justice.
Civil Procedure – Court of Appeal Rules 2009, Rule 106(1),(9) and (19) – compliance with filing timelines – discretion to waive time limits for exceptional circumstances and interest of justice; validity of administrative extensions by Deputy Registrar; preliminary objection to time‑barred submissions.
14 December 2012
Failure to serve the respondent personally with the memorandum and record of appeal under Rule 97(1) rendered the appeal incompetent and it was struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure – service of appeal documents – mandatory requirement under Rule 97(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – failure to serve respondent personally renders appeal incompetent. * Civil procedure – notice of address for service (Rule 86) does not substitute for personal service required by Rule 97(1). * Procedural default – invocation of Rule 2 to cure non-compliance with mandatory rules not appropriate where essential steps omitted. * Remedy – striking out of appeal and costs for failure to comply with mandatory appellate procedure.
13 December 2012
A defective or belated certificate of delay renders the applicant's appeal time-barred and subject to striking out with costs.
* Civil procedure – Appeals – Rule 83(1) certificate of delay – must correctly identify the cause and be issued timely to exclude preparation time from the sixty-day appeal period. * Procedural compliance – defective or improperly dated certificates may be expunged and will render appeals time-barred. * Costs – where appellant concedes procedural incompetence and gives no reason against costs, costs will be awarded to respondent.
13 December 2012
Failure to serve respondent with memorandum and record as required by Rule 97(1) renders appeal incompetent and it was struck out.
Court of Appeal procedure — Rule 97(1) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — mandatory requirement to serve respondent with memorandum and record of appeal — failure to serve respondent personally renders appeal incompetent — appeal struck out with costs.
12 December 2012
A defective certificate of delay rendered the applicant's appeal time-barred and it was struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure – Rule 83(1) certificate of delay – competency and strict compliance – certificate referring to wrong cause number and dated after record filed is defective and must be expunged; without a valid certificate appeal is time-barred. * Procedural law – expungement of defective documents – effect on appeal competence. * Costs – appeal struck out with costs where preliminary objection upheld.
12 December 2012
Trial judge’s suo motu order splitting plaintiffs without hearing them breached natural justice; appellate court quashed it.
Civil procedure – Misjoinder of plaintiffs – Court may raise misjoinder suo motu but must hear parties before making adverse orders; breach of audi alteram partem vitiates decision – Order 1 r.2 Civil Procedure Decree – Remedy: revision and quashing of portion of ruling; reinstatement of suit.
11 December 2012
A judge may raise misjoinder suo motu but must hear parties before deciding; failure to do so breaches natural justice.
Civil procedure – Joinder of parties – Misjoinder of plaintiffs raised suo motu – Duty to afford parties hearing before deciding an issue that adversely affects them – Breach of natural justice vitiates decision.
7 December 2012
Inadequate judicial summing up to assessors on key issues rendered the trial a nullity and ordered a retrial.
* Criminal procedure – Assessors – Mandatory trial with assessors – Duty of judge to sum up fully and record assessors’ opinions (s.262, s.279 CPA). * Evidence – Reliance on single child witness – credibility and identification (visual and voice) issues. * Criminal law – Ingredients of murder and effect of inadequate direction on assessors – miscarriage of justice and retrial.
6 December 2012
A Deputy Registrar acted ultra vires in granting extension of time; only the Court may grant such extensions under Rule 10.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – power to extend time – Rule 10 vests extension power in the Court (single Justice) and not in Registrar/Deputy Registrar. * Administrative action – Deputy Registrars administrative letter granting extension was ultra vires where no formal application was made to the Court. * Rule interpretation – Rule 13(7)(g) does not empower a Deputy Registrar to usurp judicial functions reserved to the Court.
6 December 2012
September 2012
Night-time visual identification upheld due to ample light, prior acquaintance and immediate naming to police; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification at night – Requirement for watertight identification (Waziri Amani principle) – Adequate lighting and familiarity with suspects can eliminate mistaken identity. * Criminal procedure – Reliability of immediate identification and naming to police – Credibility assessment by trial court entitled to deference on appeal.
10 September 2012