|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| 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 |
| December 2011 |
|
|
A certificate must present genuine points of law; factual disputes cannot be certified for determination on a fourth appeal.
* Appellate procedure – Certification under section 5(2)(c) – certificate must raise true points of law of legal significance.
* Appealability – Fourth appeal – Court of Appeal cannot re-evaluate factual evidence; factual disputes unsuitable for certification.
* Pleadings – Parties are bound by pleadings; unpleaded issues (e.g. time bar) not for determination without factual inquiry.
* Evidence – Documents not annexed and unproduced records cannot form proper basis for decision without being in evidence.
* Witness competence – Testimony of purported government officers requires proof of authority and the records relied upon.
|
19 December 2011 |
|
Second appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence for defilement upheld based on corroboration and medical opinion.
* Criminal law – defilement – corroboration of complainant’s evidence – investigator’s recovery of underpants with blood/semen and witnesses’ observations provide corroboration. * Medical evidence – expert’s role is to give opinion on findings (bruising, signs of forced entry), not a conclusive statement of penetration. * Appeals – second appeal limited in disturbing concurrent findings of fact; grounds not raised on first appeal ordinarily not entertained on second appeal. * Reliability – naming suspect at earliest opportunity as assurance of witness reliability (Marwa principle).
|
15 December 2011 |
|
Procedural defects in delay and accuracy certificates and party names are curable and do not render the appellant's appeal incompetent.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – competence of appeal – validity and computation of certificate of delay; remedial power under Rule 130 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009; certificate of accuracy – procedural deficiency; misnaming of parties – amendment to prevent injustice.
|
14 December 2011 |
|
Matrimonial houses acquired by joint effort must be equitably divided; unexplained apportionment by trial court overturned.
* Family law – Matrimonial assets – Division of property acquired during marriage/cohabitation – Joint efforts doctrine applied to houses built during union; equal shares where both parties contributed. * Procedural law – Requirement for trial court to give reasons when dividing matrimonial assets and to consider value/condition of assets. * Appeal – Appellate correction of unexplained or unreasoned asset apportionment.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and reliable voice identification upheld murder conviction; constitutional delay complaint not considered by the Court.
Criminal law – murder – circumstantial evidence – standard that facts be incompatible with innocence; voice identification – admissibility where witness familiarity shown; appellate jurisdiction – limits on entertaining constitutional complaints not raised at trial and Article 99 restrictions regarding Zanzibar Constitution.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Court held time‑barred employment suits deprived the High Court of jurisdiction; recommendation letter did not restart limitation.
Civil procedure – jurisdiction – time-bar (limitation) – plaint averments determine forum; Limitation Decree s.19(1) (acknowledgement in writing) – recommendation by committee not an acknowledgement; administrative pursuit does not toll limitation; court must dismiss time‑barred suits for want of jurisdiction (s.3(1)).
|
12 December 2011 |
|
A court lacks jurisdiction to hear time-barred employment suits unless a timely written acknowledgment restarts limitation.
* Civil procedure – Limitation – jurisdiction – court lacks jurisdiction to entertain time-barred suits under the Limitation Decree (item 102).
* Limitation Decree s.19(1) – requirement of a written, signed acknowledgment of liability by the party against whom the right is claimed and made before expiry of the limitation period.
* Administrative remedies – pursuing administrative channels does not toll or extend statutory limitation absent valid acknowledgment.
* Jurisdiction – courts must raise want of jurisdiction for time-barred claims and may dismiss sua sponte under s.3(1).
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and reliable voice identification upheld murder conviction; Court declined to hear unraised Zanzibar constitutional complaint.
Criminal law – murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence; voice identification by familiar neighbours; limits on Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear Zanzibar constitutional complaints not raised at trial; insufficiency of intoxication/fall hypothesis where injuries and postmortem indicate traumatic haematoma.
|
7 December 2011 |
|
Failing to decide a reserved preliminary objection (notably on jurisdiction) renders subsequent trial proceedings a nullity.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection must be decided before trial on merits – Jurisdictional objections require determination first – Failure to rule on reserved preliminary objection renders subsequent proceedings a nullity – Necessary party must file pleadings before participating; improper participation and later summons as court witness irregular.
|
7 December 2011 |
|
Failure to decide a reserved preliminary objection, especially on jurisdiction, renders subsequent trial proceedings null and void.
Procedure — Preliminary objection — Reserved ruling must be delivered before trial proceeds; jurisdictional objections to be determined first — Failure to rule renders subsequent proceedings a nullity. Pleadings — Necessary party (Registrar of Documents) participating without written statement of defence and later summoned as court witness — procedural irregularity. Appellate jurisdiction — Exercise of revisional power to quash proceedings and remit preliminary objection for fresh hearing.
|
2 December 2011 |
| 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 |
| December 2009 |
|
|
Extension of time granted where a still-valid notice of appeal and prompt remedial steps justified relief under Rule 8.
Court of Appeal — extension of time — Rule 8 application for leave to file appeal out of time — notice of appeal validity where record contains defective decree — citation of Rule 83(1) not fatal if enabling provisions cited — factors for granting extension (length and reasons for delay, prejudice, prospects, diligence).
|
16 December 2009 |
|
Correction applications under Rule 40(1) are subject to a sixty‑day limitation; out‑of‑time application struck out.
* Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 40(1) (correction of errors) — limitation of time; Rule 8 — Court may impose time limits by decision; sixty‑day limit applied by analogy to review/revision precedents. * Procedural law — preliminary objection — time‑barred applications — refusal to enlarge time for excessive delay.
|
11 December 2009 |
|
Applicants failed to prove prima facie success, irreparable harm, or favourable balance of convenience to justify a stay.
Court of Appeal — stay of execution under Rule 9(2)(b); requirements: prima facie appeal prospects, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; jurisdictional objection must be supported by the record/affidavit; oral submissions cannot substitute for affidavit evidence.
|
11 December 2009 |
|
An application supported by an unverified or defective affidavit is not maintainable and will be struck out.
Civil procedure — extension of time — affidavit verification — defective affidavits — preliminary objection — chamber application struck out — FOUM v Registrar of Cooperative Societies (1995) T.L.R. 75 applied.
|
11 December 2009 |
|
Cumulative procedural defects and failure to record assessors' opinions rendered the trial a nullity; retrial ordered.
Civil procedure – duty to frame issues (Order XVI Rule 1(5)); Judgment contents – concise statement, points for determination, findings and reasons (Order XXIII Rule 3(2)); Preliminary objection – necessity to decide time-bar and to examine prior judgment for res judicata; Labour law – mandatory requirement to seek and record assessors' opinions (Labour Relations Act s.83(4)–(5)); Trial nullity – cumulative procedural defects warrant retrial de novo.
|
11 December 2009 |
|
Unexplained gaps in chain of custody for seized drugs create reasonable doubt and warrant quashing of conviction.
Criminal procedure – narcotics – chain of custody – failure to document seizure/handling of exhibits permits inference of possible tampering and undermines reliance on forensic analysis; appellate intervention justified where material non-direction on evidence exists.
|
10 December 2009 |
| January 2009 |
|
|
Part-payments extended limitation; contract lawful; USD110,000 proved; repossession clause valid; ancillary supervisory orders set aside.
Limitation — part payment restarts limitation period; Contract law — legality/public policy of foreign creditor transactions; Proof of debt — evidence and account statements; Set-off/appropriation of proceeds; Repossession clause as security (validity and limits); Illegal managerial/executory orders — court cannot act as manager/receiver absent pleadings.
|
7 January 2009 |
| December 2008 |
|
|
Court declared High Court proceedings a nullity for dismissing suit without addressing preliminary objections or hearing parties.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Locus standi – Trial judge’s failure to hear parties and decide preliminary objections – Proceedings declared nullity – Ruling and orders set aside and file remitted.
|
2 December 2008 |
|
Reported
High Court orders set aside as nullity for failing to hear parties and to decide pre-filed preliminary objections.
Civil procedure — Preliminary objections; locus standi — failure to address objections and to hear parties — procedural irregularity — nullity of proceedings; appellate revisional powers — setting aside rulings and remitting matter for proper determination.
|
2 December 2008 |
| November 2008 |
|
|
Reported
Leave to appeal refused where intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects on the critical evidential issue.
* Appellate procedure – leave to appeal – requirement that intended appeal have some merit or reasonable prospects of success before leave is granted; * Evidence – appellate interference in findings of fact and credibility limited where intended appeal is primarily evidential; * Civil procedure – execution to proceed where leave to appeal is refused.
|
28 November 2008 |
|
Reported
Leave to appeal refused because the intended appeal lacks reasonable prospects on the evidential issue of indebtedness.
* Appellate procedure – leave to appeal – requirement that intended appeal have reasonable prospects of success before leave is granted. * Evidence – indebtedness – sufficiency of oral evidence versus absence of documentary proof. * Execution – refusal of leave permits execution to proceed.
|
28 November 2008 |
|
Reported
Leave to appeal refused where the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects on a central evidential issue.
Appellate procedure — Leave to appeal — Granting leave only where intended appeal has reasonable prospects; evidential disputes and balance of probabilities; refusal of leave where central issue is credibility and lower courts’ findings stand.
|
28 November 2008 |