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.
7 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
7 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
December 2020
The union lacked locus standi because its constitution vested the authority to sue in the Board of Trustees.
Locus standi – trade unions – constitutionally vested authority to sue – Board of Trustees’ exclusive mandate – proceedings instituted by one without authority are nullities – appellate revisional powers to nullify and dismiss appeal.
18 December 2020
Whether the respondent proved defamation and publication against the appellant, where key evidence was hearsay.
Defamation — elements: defamatory words, reference to claimant, publication; Allegations by a third party made while intoxicated may not be defamatory if they do not lower reputation; Hearsay inadmissible — Evidence Act ss.61–64; Qualified privilege for communications among employer/management; Appellate re‑evaluation of evidence and findings.
18 December 2020
Court nullified Industrial Court judgment for relying on an untendered annexure and ordered a fresh hearing.
* Labour law – assessors – section 83(2)-(3) Labour Relations Act – absence of an assessor does not automatically vitiate proceedings where continuation permitted. * Evidence – admissibility – annexures to pleadings are not evidence; documents must be tendered and admitted as exhibits before reliance in judgment. * Natural justice – right to be heard – reliance on untendered material condemns a party unheard and vitiates proceedings. * Procedural remedy – appellate revisional powers (s.4(2) AJA) to nullify proceedings and order retrial.
18 December 2020
Whether a High Court judge may grant bail under s.371(1) while a separate High Court bail application is pending.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Scope of section 371(1) CPA – High Court’s power to grant bail pending appeal limited to cases where High Court sits in appellate jurisdiction; conflict between judges of same court – equal jurisdiction and impropriety of one judge adopting another’s order made in different context; functus officio and effect on pending bail applications; appellate revisional powers to order trial to proceed.
17 December 2020
Whether termination complied with statutory redundancy/dismissal procedures and whether the trial judge erred by not framing issues.
Employment law – Termination – Redundancy vs dismissal – Requirement to comply with Employment Act s.121(2); Public Investment Act s.11(5) – staff regulations required; Civil procedure – framing of issues under Order XVI(1)(5) – omission fatal where parties not agreed.
16 December 2020
Reported
Appeal struck out where required leave to appeal was fatally defective due to inconsistent documents and dates.
Appeal — leave to appeal — requirement under s.5(1)(c) AJA and Rule 96(2)(a) — defective leave where dates/documents inconsistent — amendment and overriding objective cannot supply non-existent leave — appeal struck out with costs.
14 December 2020
Appellant's maritime lien was time‑barred under s.92(1); trial court correctly awarded reliefs against the first respondent only.
* Maritime law – maritime lien – limitation period under section 92(1) of the Maritime Transport Act 2006 – one‑year extinction of lien; exception under s.92(2) (suspension where lien‑holder legally prevented from arresting vessel) not established. * Pleadings – interpretation of "the defendants and each of them" permits individual or joint liability. * Civil procedure – proof required to invoke suspension of limitation periods.
14 December 2020