|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 2002 |
|
|
Identification of the respondents was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Identification evidence; burden of proof – identity must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; need for corroboration and police investigation where night-time identification is relied upon; medical evidence (PF3) as corroboration.
|
30 April 2002 |
|
Appeal dismissed: cautioned statement and complainant's testimony proved obtaining money by false pretences.
Criminal law – obtaining money by false pretences – elements: false representation, receipt of money, and intention to defraud. Evidence – cautioned statement – admissibility and corroborative value of accused's confession/admission. Appeal – sufficiency of evidence – conviction upheld where admissions and complainant's testimony prove offence beyond reasonable doubt.
|
30 April 2002 |
|
|
29 April 2002 |
|
Conviction for obtaining money by false pretences quashed for failure to prove fraudulent intent at time of loan.
Criminal law – Obtaining money by false pretences – requirement of fraudulent knowledge/intent at time of obtaining funds; Corporate / agency liability – principal officer of unincorporated project may be criminally liable if offence proved; Evidence – post-payment discovery of insufficiency does not establish false pretences at time of inducement; Civil remedy – lender may pursue loan recovery in civil proceedings.
|
29 April 2002 |
|
Conviction for obtaining money by false pretences quashed for lack of evidence of requisite knowledge or intent.
Criminal law – Obtaining money by false pretences – mens rea requirement; evidence must show knowledge or intention to deceive at time of obtaining funds. Corporate/project representation – acting as chairman does not per se prevent personal criminal liability. Evidence – written loan agreement (Exh P1) material; failure to consider key evidence may render conviction unsafe.
|
29 April 2002 |
|
Application to set aside appeal decree dismissed for procedural noncompliance, defective affidavit, and absence of chamber summons.
Civil procedure — Application to set aside decree in appeal — competency and need to cite enabling provision; Appeal under Court of Appeal Rules 75–76 as proper remedy; Affidavit requirements — Order XIX r3(1) (facts within deponent's knowledge, not belief); Procedure for applications — Order XLIII r2 (chamber summons supported by affidavit); Cumulative procedural irregularities fatal.
|
29 April 2002 |
|
Application to set aside decree dismissed for procedural non-compliance and lack of enabling provision.
Civil procedure – applications under Civil Procedure Code – requirement to cite enabling provision; affidavit must state facts within deponent's knowledge (Order XIX r.3(1)); chamber summons requirement for applications (Order XLIII r.2); remedy by appeal (Court of Appeal Rules 1979, rr.75–76).
|
29 April 2002 |
|
Whether a rape conviction can stand where the complainant and a witness testify but the medical PF3 was not produced and the accused offers an alternative explanation.
Criminal law — Rape — proof beyond reasonable doubt; credibility of complainant and corroboration by a witness; non-production of PF3/medical evidence; accused's alibi/alternative explanation; sentence.
|
29 April 2002 |
|
Default judgment entered without proof and without effective notice was set aside; matter remitted for rehearing de novo.
Civil procedure – Default judgment – requirement that plaintiff prove claim ex parte before judgment in defendant's absence. Civil procedure – Application to set aside judgment – right to be heard; inadmissibility of deciding solely on affidavits without hearing. Civil procedure – Service and notice – effective service/notice of mediation or hearing dates essential for valid default judgment.
|
25 April 2002 |
|
Reported
Courts - Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of Courts in suits by the Government - Whether a suit by the Government may be instituted in a Court other than the High Court - Section 7A of the Government Proceedings Act 1967 and section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code 1966.
Government Proceedings - Suits by the Government - Government files a suit for recovery of TZS. 8 million in the High Court — Whether the suit is properly before the High Court- Section 7A ofthe Government Proceedings Act 1967, section 13 ofthe Civil Procedure Code 1966. |
23 April 2002 |
|
Claim for short delivery dismissed as time‑barred under section 67(b) of the Tanzania Harbours Act.
Tanzania Harbours Act—s66(1) written claim within six months; s67(a) one‑month notice of intention to sue; s67(b) twelve‑month limitation—cause of action accrual; specified corporation and joinder (GN 543 of 1997) — PSRC; effect of leave to sue on limitation.
|
22 April 2002 |
|
An applicant who has dissipated estate funds cannot be appointed administrator; the prior administratrix's appointment must be respected and funds recovered.
Administration of estates – appointment of administrator – unsuitability where applicant has already dissipated estate assets – court must be satisfied administrator will not waste estate. Civil procedure – competing applications for letters of administration – where one grant exists the proper remedy is appeal, not a second parallel grant. Estate administration – recovery and distribution of misappropriated estate proceeds by the legitimately appointed administratrix.
|
18 April 2002 |
|
Conviction for theft cannot rest on speculation or mere duty status; prosecution must prove participation beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Theft – Sufficiency of evidence – Whether mere status as watchman and temporal proximity to disappearance suffice to convict for stealing. Criminal procedure – Appellate review – Conviction based on speculation or findings unsupported by evidence must be quashed.
|
17 April 2002 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed as timely but without arguable legal grounds on terminal benefits or minimum wage.
Civil procedure – application for leave to appeal – computation of limitation period for leave where a copy of judgment is obtained – Court of Appeal Rules r.43(a) and Law of Limitation Act s.19(2). Procedural law – defective citation by lay applicant – not fatal where application is otherwise proper. Labour law – terminal benefits and minimum wage – factual findings of trial and High Court that payments were due and paid upheld; minimum wage contention not raised at trial and insufficient to grant leave.
|
17 April 2002 |
|
|
16 April 2002 |
|
Leave must be obtained before filing prerogative orders; an 'amended' application cannot revive an application declared incompetent.
Prerogative orders – certiorari and mandamus – prior leave to file required – application declared incompetent for want of leave – amended chamber application improper where no pending application to amend – restoration application struck out – costs awarded.
|
14 April 2002 |
|
An application declared incompetent cannot be revived or amended without complying with statutory leave and procedural requirements.
Administrative law — prerogative orders — requirement of prior leave to apply for certiorari/mandamus — competence of application — amended application cannot revive a matter closed for non-compliance with procedural requirements.
|
14 April 2002 |
|
Application to restore a chamber application was struck out because the original matter was closed and procedural requirements were not met.
Judicial review – chamber application for prerogative orders – procedural competence – requirement for leave to file – effect of earlier ruling declaring application incompetent – restoration/amendment of closed proceedings – misplacement of court file irrelevant.
|
14 April 2002 |
|
Appellant's conviction quashed because suspicion and absconding did not prove theft beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Evidence – Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion and flight alone insufficient to prove guilt. Criminal procedure – Appellate review – Where alternative hypotheses exist and opportunity to commit the offence is shared, conviction may be unsafe and should be quashed. Evidence – Credibility of single witness insufficient where others had equal opportunity to commit theft.
|
12 April 2002 |
|
Conviction based on suspicion and opportunity was unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
Criminal law – theft by servant – circumstantial evidence – opportunity and suspicious conduct insufficient for conviction. Burden of proof – reasonable doubt must be resolved for accused; suspicion alone not enough. Appeal – conviction unsafe where alternative perpetrators possible and evidence not probative.
|
12 April 2002 |
|
Convictions for theft quashed where prosecution relied on mere suspicion and failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Theft from motor vehicle (ss. 269, 265 Penal Code) – Insufficiency of evidence – Conviction based on mere suspicion – Appeal allowed; conviction, sentence and compensation set aside.
|
11 April 2002 |
|
Appeal allowed: convictions for motor vehicle theft quashed because they rested on mere suspicion, not sufficient evidence.
Criminal law – theft from motor vehicle – conviction must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt – conviction founded on mere suspicion unsustainable – appellate intervention to quash convictions and set aside sentences and compensation.
|
11 April 2002 |
|
The applicants' theft convictions were quashed as unsafe, being based on mere suspicion.
Criminal law – theft from motor vehicle; sufficiency of evidence – conviction based on mere suspicion unsafe; appellate review where State does not support conviction; setting aside sentence and compensation.
|
11 April 2002 |
|
A District Court lacked jurisdiction over an inheritance/immovable-property claim without High Court leave; proceedings were quashed.
Magistrates' Courts Act s63(1) – jurisdiction – inheritance under customary law and immovable property – proceedings must be in a primary court unless the Republic is a party or High Court grants leave – District Court proceedings without leave are void.
|
11 April 2002 |
|
|
11 April 2002 |
|
Conviction based solely on uncorroborated child testimony is unsafe absent recorded reasons as required by statute.
Criminal law – Rape of a child – Reliance on uncorroborated testimony of a child of tender years – Requirement under s.27(7) (as amended) that court record reasons for being satisfied the child is telling the truth – Failure to record reasons renders conviction unsafe.
|
11 April 2002 |
|
Failure to comply with appeal formalities and reliance on an invalid power of attorney renders an appeal incompetent and dismissible.
Civil procedure – appeal – compliance with Order XXXIX r.1(1) – mandatory annexation of decree (and judgment unless dispensed). Civil procedure – defective memorandum of appeal – annexation of irrelevant documents and citation of enabling provisions applicable to chamber summons. Locus standi – appellant as stranger to original suit – reliance on unregistered/invalid Power of Attorney – incompetence to prosecute appeal. Preliminary objection – competence and admissibility determined on written submissions.
|
10 April 2002 |
|
District Commissioner acted ultra vires in suspending the applicant's registered society; suspension quashed and status quo reinstated.
Administrative law – prerogative relief (certiorari, prohibition) – ultra vires administrative act; Societies Ordinance – power to declare/cancel societies vested in President; Registrar’s practice of consulting local authority – reasonable; Regional Administration Act s.14(2) – limits on district commissioner’s powers; evidence required to justify suspension on public order grounds.
|
10 April 2002 |
|
Recent possession plus an unsatisfactory explanation upheld a cattle theft conviction and compulsory minimum sentence.
Criminal law – cattle theft – possession shortly after theft – doctrine of recent possession applied. Evidence – identification by special marks and colour – credibility of owner’s identification. Evidence – unsatisfactory explanation, failure to call witnesses and inconsistencies in permits weaken defence. Sentencing – minimum sentence under Minimum Sentences Act and compulsory compensation upheld.
|
8 April 2002 |
|
The applicant’s conviction for obtaining goods by false pretences was upheld and the unspecified compensation order was rectified to Shs 4,500,000.
Criminal law – Obtaining goods by false pretences (s.302 Penal Code) – elements: obtaining, false representation of present fact, intent to defraud. Representation considered false where maker knew it to be false or did not believe it true. Conditional discharge (s.38 Penal Code) – discretionary; not disturbed absent cross-appeal. Compensation order (s.348 Criminal Procedure Act) must specify amount; appellate correction/rectification and enforcement under Civil Procedure Code.
|
4 April 2002 |
|
Accused convicted of manslaughter as mutual provocation, drinking and the victim being armed negated malice aforethought.
Criminal law – murder vs manslaughter; mutual threats and fatal fight; victim armed – relevance to malice aforethought; possible defences: provocation, self‑defence, intoxication; sentencing – first offender and long remand consideration.
|
4 April 2002 |
|
Appeal dismissed for failure to prove land claim; High Court affirmed concurrent findings and exercised Order 39 Rule 21.
Land law – proof of title and possession – civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities). Evidence – locus in quo inspection – weight of site visit findings in resolving boundary/trespass disputes. Civil procedure – second appeal – High Court power under Order 39 Rule 21 to determine a suit finally where evidence on record is sufficient.
|
2 April 2002 |
|
Appellate court upheld rape conviction: oral confession admissible, lack of medical evidence not fatal, relatives’ evidence permissible.
Criminal law — Rape — Corroboration of complainant's evidence — Oral confession to village executive officer — Admissibility and voluntariness — Evidence of close relatives — Sentence and compensation review.
|
2 April 2002 |
|
Conviction quashed where authorship of disputed document was unproven and expert report failed statutory form requirements.
Criminal evidence – handwriting identification – requirement for eyewitness or properly acquainted lay evidence; inadmissibility of expert report not complying with section 205 Criminal Procedure Act; impermissibility of judicial reliance on private knowledge of handwriting; conviction unsafe where sole evidence is improperly supported.
|
2 April 2002 |