|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 1996 |
|
|
Plaintiff failed to prove illegality, duress or payment; loan document showed defendant was a beneficiary not signatory.
Civil procedure – ex parte affidavit evidence; evidentiary sufficiency – burden to prove detention, payment and causation; contract parties – distinction between signatory and beneficiary; allegation of compounding an offence – requires supporting proof.
|
31 October 1996 |
|
An improperly pleaded stay of execution (no legal basis cited) is not an application and must be rejected; extension application may proceed.
Civil procedure — Chamber summons — Joinder of reliefs — Application for stay of execution must be properly pleaded; failure to cite legal basis for a relief renders that relief non-existent in law and not amenable to amendment — Extension of time application may proceed if properly pleaded.
|
31 October 1996 |
|
The applicant cannot have the father's estate included in the son's estate; father's estate must be distributed to heirs first.
* Probate & Administration – Whether property of a deceased father may be included in administration of his deceased son's estate – separation and distribution of father's estate before appointment of administrator of son's estate.
* Protection of heirs – duty to protect widow's and other heirs' interests where prior administrator died before completing administration and alleged mismanagement.
* Procedure – primary court directed to comply with appellate directions and interested persons may bring fresh proceedings in respect of the father's estate.
|
31 October 1996 |
|
Conviction for burglary upheld; three-year sentence replaced by mandatory five-year term and sentences ordered to run concurrently.
* Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Recent possession of stolen property as proof of guilt – Doctrine of recent possession applies where accused found with recovered stolen goods and cannot explain possession.
* Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act 1972 – Where value of stolen property exceeds statutory threshold the mandatory minimum sentence applies; an unlawful lesser sentence must be set aside and substituted.
* Sentencing concurrency – Offences committed almost simultaneously should attract concurrent sentences rather than consecutive ones.
|
30 October 1996 |
|
Injunction and suit dismissed because plaint omitted subject-matter value and applicant failed to prove compliance with loan agreement.
* Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction – Section 13 CPC – suit must be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it – omission of subject-matter value defeats jurisdiction. * Civil procedure – Order VII r1 – plaint must show value for jurisdiction and fees. * Interim relief – Order 37 r1 – applicant must show serious question to be tried and probability of success (Attilio v Mbowe test). * Evidence – burden to prove compliance with loan agreement – bank statements alone insufficient.
|
30 October 1996 |
|
A prescribed six‑month limitation for prerogative orders under Act No.55/1968 is definitive and not extendable by the court.
Judicial review – prerogative orders (certiorari, mandamus) – limitation period – section 18(2) Act No.55/1968 prescribes six months – non‑extendability; Law of Limitation Act 1971 (s.14, s.46) not displacing clear specific limitation; pending appeal not sufficient ground to extend time.
|
30 October 1996 |
|
Conviction for robbery with violence set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – robbery with violence – standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – unsafe conviction where testimony inconsistent and material witnesses omitted or inadequately examined – appellate intervention to set aside conviction.
|
30 October 1996 |
|
Non-compliance with mandatory Rule 3 consultations/signature renders Primary Court proceedings a nullity; retrial ordered before different magistrate and assessors.
Magistrates' Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgement of Court) Rules (GN No.2/1988) - Rule 3 mandatory consultations with assessors - judgment must be signed by magistrate and assessors where all agree - summing up cannot replace consultations - failure to comply renders proceedings a nullity - retrial de novo ordered.
|
30 October 1996 |
|
Failure to afford a witness opportunity to explain inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence vitiated the perjury conviction.
Criminal law – Perjury – Disowning earlier statement not automatically perjury; prosecution must confront witness with prior statement and seek explanation before treating witness as hostile; requirement of corroboration/other evidence per s.105 Penal Code; materiality of evidence in relation to charges against third parties.
|
29 October 1996 |
Criminal law - Theft - Proof of- Doctrine of recent possession - When applicable. Evidence - Burden of proof - The Accused’s version has only to raise a reasonable doubt. |
28 October 1996 |
|
Reported
Appellant's plausible explanation for possession rebutted the inference from recent possession; conviction quashed and appellant released.
Criminal law – robbery with violence – recent possession doctrine – burden shifts to accused to give reasonable explanation – accused's plausible, corroborated explanation raises reasonable doubt – conviction quashed.
|
28 October 1996 |
|
Conviction for cattle theft quashed where identification was unreliable and recent-possession doctrine inapplicable after three years.
Criminal law – Theft – Identification of stolen property – Insufficient/watertight identification where witnesses examined animals at police post before giving descriptions; witnesses with personal interest may be unreliable. Criminal law – Recent possession – Doctrine inapplicable after long lapse (three years). Criminal procedure – Trial misdirection – Conviction cannot rest solely on possession without due consideration of a plausible defence.
|
25 October 1996 |
|
A plea of guilty must be supported by sufficiently detailed prosecution facts; otherwise conviction must be quashed.
Criminal law – defilement – adequacy of prosecution summary when conviction follows plea of guilty; requirement that summary disclose material particulars; evidential weight of PF3; clarity of accused’s admission.
|
25 October 1996 |
|
Failure to give statutory notice of intention to appeal renders the appeal incompetent and it is dismissed.
Criminal procedure — Notice of intention to appeal — Section 361 Criminal Procedure Act — Requirement to give notice within ten days and lodge petition within forty-five days — Court's discretion to admit out-of-time appeal — Need to show good cause — Failure to give notice renders appeal incompetent.
|
24 October 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed for lack of evidence of a three-foot land encroachment; appellant ordered to pay costs.
Land dispute – alleged encroachment of steps (approx. 3 feet) – Primary Court failed to address complaint – District Court reversal for insufficient evidence – unserved additional grounds of appeal – ex parte proceedings – appeal dismissed, costs awarded.
|
23 October 1996 |
|
Respondent's continuous possession exceeding the statutory limitation bars the applicant’s land claim; appeal dismissed.
Land law – adverse possession/limitation – continuous occupation for statutory period defeats later claim; evidence evaluation by lower courts upheld; procedural technicalities on appeal rejected.
|
23 October 1996 |
|
Failure to re-summon and re-hear witnesses under s.214 prejudiced the accused and rendered the conviction unsafe.
* Criminal procedure – continuation of trial by another magistrate – section 214(1) and mandatory re-hearing requirement of s.214(2)(a) – failure to re-summon/re-hear witnesses renders conviction unsafe.
* Evidence – defective trial record and inability to assess witness credibility from incomprehensible notes – prejudice to the accused.
* Remedies – irregularity not curable under s.388; fresh hearing required.
|
23 October 1996 |
|
Primary Court properly applied customary law and assessors' views; District Court erred in declaring proceedings a nullity.
Customary law; Primary Court jurisdiction and procedure; role of assessors familiar with local custom; appellate review of nullity findings; finality of litigation; administration of deceased estates.
|
22 October 1996 |
|
Land recovery claim dismissed as time‑barred; appellant held to have acquired title by long possession.
Limitation Act 1971 – Recovery of land – Period of limitation 12 years – Possession since 1961 gives title by prescription – Lower courts’ failure to dismiss time‑barred action – Appellate substitution of Primary Court judgment.
|
22 October 1996 |
|
Conviction based on recent possession lacking specific identification is unsafe; sentence quashed and appellant released.
Criminal law – store breaking – recent possession doctrine – requirement of satisfactory identification of stolen items – insufficiency of generic possession to ground conviction – charge of neglect to prevent felony where accused absent – appellate interference where conviction unsafe.
|
18 October 1996 |
|
Absence of a permit alone does not prove unlawful possession; a plausible explanation can raise reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Possession of property suspected to be stolen – Absence of permit not conclusive proof of unlawful possession – Accused’s burden to give reasonable explanation is light – Assessment of witness credibility and corroboration – Proof beyond reasonable doubt required.
|
16 October 1996 |
|
Appellate court upheld Tshs 1,800,000 compensation for unexhausted improvements and ordered payment in four monthly instalments.
Land – compensation for unexhausted improvements on customary/clan land – valuation where precise evidence lacking – appellate interference with factual findings – payment of monetary awards by instalment due to inflation.
|
16 October 1996 |
|
Missing assessor and absence of a boundary sketch rendered the trial unfair and warranted a retrial without fresh fees.
Civil procedure – trial irregularities – failure to draw/produce sketch map for disputed land; trial conducted with only one assessor – miscarriage of justice; retrial (trial de novo) ordered; retrial to proceed without fresh fees.
|
15 October 1996 |
|
Procedural defects (wrong venue and lack of notice) in probate proceedings justified annulling orders and ordering retrial at the proper primary court.
Probate jurisdiction – proper venue for administration of estate; Notice and participation of interested persons in probate proceedings; Procedural irregularity/miscarriage of justice – annulment of orders and retrial at correct primary court.
|
15 October 1996 |
|
Civil court declines to overturn bishopric election or discipline ecclesiastical matters, finding insufficient proof and procedural defects.
Ecclesiastical law — internal church discipline and elections — jurisdiction of civil courts — competence and procedure for representative suits — proof on balance of probabilities for allegations of bribery and misconduct — Tribunal competence under diocesan constitution — discretionary power of Archbishop to demand resignation.
|
15 October 1996 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution relied on uncorroborated, unreliable witnesses and missing money remained unexplained.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Credibility of prosecution eyewitnesses – Missing cash unexplained – Need for independent corroboration where primary witnesses' accounts are suspect – Benefit of reasonable doubt – Quashing unsafe conviction.
|
15 October 1996 |
|
Primary Court judgment absent and procedurally invalid; appeal allowed and both judgments quashed; record remitted for proper determination.
Magistrate's Courts (Primary Courts) — Judgment of Court Rules (Rule 3) — Requirement of a joint decision by presiding magistrate and assessors — Invalidity of judgment where presiding magistrate acts unilaterally — Quashing of Primary Court and District Court decisions — Remittal for proper judgment or de novo hearing.
|
10 October 1996 |
|
Appellant’s convictions for grievous harm and malicious damage affirmed on credible identification and admitted custody of the bicycle.
* Criminal law – grievous harm (s.225 Penal Code) – identification and credibility of eyewitnesses; presence of torch light and social position supporting identification. * Criminal law – malicious damage to property (s.326(1)) – liability where accused admits taking property and it is returned incomplete. * Defence procedure – failure to put material allegations (bad relations) to witnesses in cross‑examination precludes reliance on them on appeal. * Use of force – alleged victim wrongdoing does not justify private violent punishment.
|
10 October 1996 |
|
Discrepancies in seized exhibits and failure to properly identify evidence warrant retrial before a different magistrate.
Criminal law – stealing – identification and tendering of exhibits – discrepancies in number of seized items – duty of trial court to hear evidence and make findings on ownership – defective prosecution evidence – retrial ordered.
|
7 October 1996 |
|
Appellate court set aside dismissal for procedural technicalities and ordered hearing on merits where illness explanation was plausibly supported.
Civil procedure — summary suit — application for leave to appear and defend — affidavit defects and mislabelling — discretion to overlook technicalities — medical evidence for non-appearance (treatment chit v. ED/LD certificates) — setting aside dismissal and ordering hearing on merits.
|
4 October 1996 |
|
Appellants' conspiracy conviction upheld; illegal sentence reduced to five years and breaking conviction quashed.
Criminal law — Conspiracy and breaking into a building — Alternative counts — conviction must be entered on one count only; sentencing limits — section 170(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act and minimum sentence considerations; circumstantial evidence — disappearance and subsequent arrest as inference of guilt.
|
4 October 1996 |
|
Possession of stolen, inscribed property and admission of being the driver supported restoration of a robbery conviction.
Criminal law – Robbery – Identification evidence – admission of being taxi driver removed typical identification concerns; possession of recently stolen property (camera cover bearing complainant's name and cash) as strong corroborative evidence; appellate review – quashing of conviction unjustified where possession and victim identification overwhelmingly support guilty finding.
|
3 October 1996 |
|
|
3 October 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed where evidence showed claimant’s son was not fathered by the deceased, negating any inheritance claim.
Inheritance/disputed land – paternity as basis for intestate succession – whether claimant’s child was biological child of deceased; testamentary instrument alleged in favour of claimant — validity and withdrawal; weight of documentary evidence (baptismal record, hospital birth chit) on balance of probabilities.
|
2 October 1996 |
|
Appeal allowed because the wrong legal entity was sued; proceedings and judgment declared null and void.
Employment law – employer identification by contract and termination documents; Government programmes – lack of independent legal personality; Civil procedure – wrong party sued; nullity of proceedings and judgment ab initio.
|
2 October 1996 |
|
Appellate court restores Primary Court: respondent’s claimed ignorance of spouse’s marriage did not excuse adultery liability.
* Family law – Adultery – Proof of adultery by eyewitnesses – Credibility of witnesses and inferences from subsequent conduct.
* Family law – Knowledge of marital status – Whether claimed ignorance can exonerate respondent for adultery under the Law of Marriage Act.
* Civil procedure – Appeal – appellate court restoring Primary Court decision where intermediate court’s reasoning found implausible.
|
2 October 1996 |
|
Convictions quashed where prosecution produced no evidence against accused and conviction relied on co‑accused's fabricated after‑thought.
Criminal law — Evidence — Insufficiency of prosecution evidence; Conviction based on co‑accused's after‑thought allegation unsafe; Trial court’s duty to assess whether there is a case to answer; Appellate revision — quashing unsafe convictions.
|
1 October 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed: structure intruding into neighbour’s plot constituted tortious trespass; demolition, ejection and permanent injunction ordered.
Property — Tortious trespass — Erection of structure intruding into neighbour’s plot — Requirement for demolition to extent of intrusion and ejection/injunction; res judicata — earlier demarcation judgment did not bar subsequent suit on intrusion issue; credible surveyor evidence upheld.
|
1 October 1996 |
|
Where boundaries are unclear, absence of permanent crops does not prove non‑ownership; trial magistrate must revisit land to fix boundaries.
* Land law – boundary disputes – where boundaries are unclear, a court should ascertain actual boundaries by site inspection; absence of permanent crops is not conclusive on ownership. * Evidence – probative value of cultivation: lack of permanent crops does not by itself disprove ownership. * Remedy – remittal for fresh visit to ascertain boundaries.
|
1 October 1996 |
|
Reported
High Court granted leave for prerogative relief, holding s 34(2B) withholding is not an "assessment" under ss 91–93 and statutory remedies are inadequate.
* Administrative law – prerogative remedies – certiorari, mandamus, prohibition – availability where statutory alternative is inadequate or inapplicable.
* Tax law – Income Tax Act s 34(2B) – withholding at source is an advance payment mechanism, not an assessment under Part XIV.
* Tax procedure – ss 91 and 93 – objection and appeal procedures apply to assessments; deposit requirement (s 93(5)) may render statutory remedy onerous.
|
1 October 1996 |
|
Reported
Income tax - Withholding tax - Objection to - Jurisdiction of court -Remedies provided by sections 91 and 93 of Income Tax Act not appropriate for disputed application of s 34(2B) |
1 October 1996 |