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.
9 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
9 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
December 2013
Failure to adequately sum up to assessors renders the trial invalid and warrants a retrial.
* Criminal procedure – Assessors – duty of trial judge to sum-up evidence to assessors (s.278(1) CPA) – "may" construed in practice as mandatory for adequate summing-up on essential elements – failure or misdirection fatal – trial not with aid of assessors – revisional relief and retrial ordered under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
13 December 2013
Failure to properly sum up to assessors renders the trial a nullity and warrants quashing and retrial.
* Criminal procedure – trials with assessors – statutory requirement to sum up to assessors under s.278(1) – necessity for a recorded and comprehensive summing up; * Summing up must include summary of facts, evidence, relevant law, and possible defences; * Failure to properly sum up is fatal and renders the trial a nullity; * Remedy: quash proceedings, set aside sentence and order retrial de novo with new assessors.
13 December 2013
Applicants may apply to the Court of Appeal after a Regional Court with extended jurisdiction refuses extension of time.
* Appellate procedure – Extension of time – Where subordinate court exercises extended jurisdiction it is deemed High Court for Rule 47 and section 11(1) AJA – Applicants may apply to Court of Appeal after refusal by that subordinate court. * Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Competence of application under appellate rules. * Procedural law – Issues not properly raised or without leave will not be entertained.
11 December 2013
A preliminary objection based on disputed facts cannot be decided on counsel submissions; it must be tried with admissible evidence.
Civil procedure — Preliminary objections — Must raise pure points of law apparent on pleadings; counsel submissions and extraneous documents are not evidence — Order XIV Rule 6 (admissions) not invoked — Order XXI Rules 7 & 8 require oral evidence in court under judge’s superintendence — Company registration and capacity to hold land are factual matters for trial.
10 December 2013
Extension of time granted to seek revision where prima facie illegality justified delay; substantive issues reserved for Full Court.
Civil procedure — Extension of time to file revision — Rule 10 and Rule 65(4) — Alleged illegality and irregularity in lower court proceedings — Recording of compromise as decree while preliminary objections pending — Deputy Registrar’s jurisdiction — Prima facie assessment by Single Judge; substantive determination left to Full Court.
10 December 2013
Application for extension struck out for failure to comply with Rule 48(1) and mis-citation of enabling rule.
Procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 48(1) mandatory requirement for notice of motion and affidavit; Mis‑pleading of procedure – filing chamber application instead of notice of motion; Mis-citation of rule – citing Rule 47 instead of Rule 10 for extension of time; Court’s suo motu power to raise procedural non‑compliance; Incompetence of application leads to striking out.
3 December 2013
November 2013
Applicant not party to original suit and supported by defective jurat; application struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure – locus standi – a non-party to original suit lacks standing to apply for review; remedy is revision. * Civil procedure – affidavits – jurat must include attesting officer's handwritten name; omission renders affidavit incurably defective and application incompetent. * Civil procedure – failure to file court-ordered written submissions = failure to appear; court may determine objections in absence of defaulting party.
8 November 2013
September 2013
Reported
Application for extension of time struck out for non-compliance with Rule 48(1) and for citing the wrong rule.
* Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Rule 48(1) — requirement that applications be by notice of motion supported by affidavit and cite the specific rule. * Procedural competence — improper mode of application (chamber application vs notice of motion) — consequences of non-compliance. * Rule citation — citing a general rule (Rule 47) instead of the specific rule for extension of time (Rule 10) — renders application incompetent.
10 September 2013
Extension application struck out for being filed as a chamber application and citing the wrong rule.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 48(1) mandatory form of application; requirement for notice of motion supported by affidavit; necessity to cite specific rule; improper use of chamber application; citing wrong rule (Rule 47 instead of Rule 10) renders application incompetent and subject to striking out.
10 September 2013