|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2009 |
|
|
A bona fide procedural mistake by a diligent lay litigant can constitute sufficient cause to extend time to file an appeal.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Application to file appeal out of time from District Court in proceedings originating in Primary Court – Section 25(1)(3) Magistrates' Courts Act and GN 312/1964 rules. * Sufficient cause – Ignorance of law/illiteracy and bona fide procedural mistake by a diligent lay litigant. * Prospects of success – Relevant but not decisive for extension.
|
16 October 2009 |
|
High Court granted extension where a diligent lay applicant's procedural mistake and ignorance of time limits constituted sufficient cause.
* Extension of time – Appeals from Primary Courts – Section 25(1)&(3) Magistrates' Courts Act; GN.312 r.3 (Cap.358 R.E.2002).
* Sufficient cause – procedural mistake by a lay, unrepresented litigant; ignorance of law and diligence.
* Prospects of success – relevant but not alone sufficient to justify extension.
* Exercise of judicial discretion to grant extension in interests of justice.
|
16 October 2009 |
|
A lay litigant’s ignorance and diligence can constitute sufficient cause to extend time for filing an appeal.
Civil procedure – Extension of time to file appeal; Primary Court appeals – section 25(1)(3) Magistrates’ Courts Act and GN 312/1964; lay litigant’s ignorance/illiteracy as sufficient cause; prospects of success not determinative.
|
16 October 2009 |
|
A decree incorrectly dated and signed by a registrar contravenes the CPC and renders the appeal incompetent and struck out.
Civil procedure – decree – formal defects (incorrect date; signed by District Registrar not Judge) – contravention of Order XX Rule 7 CPC 1966 – effect on competence of appeal – striking out appeal.
|
16 October 2009 |
|
Company-management and share-variation disputes must be instituted by petition under the Companies Act, not by plaint.
Companies Act (ss.73, 233) — Variation of share rights and unfairly prejudicial conduct — Petition is the mandatory procedure; "may" in s.233(1) denotes a member's option to pursue relief, not procedural choice — Wrong procedural commencement renders suit incurably defective and subject to striking out.
|
15 October 2009 |
|
Rape conviction quashed due to inconsistent complainant evidence, absent corroboration and procedural irregularities including non‑compliance with s.240(3).
Criminal procedure – preliminary hearing – non‑compliance with s.192(3) – fatal irregularity; Evidence – complainant inconsistencies and lack of corroboration; PF3 admissibility and s.240(3) right to summon medical officer; conviction unsafe where PF3 does not identify accused as source of semen.
|
12 October 2009 |
|
Conviction quashed due to unreliable complainant evidence, defective PF3 and procedural breaches of s.192(3) and s.240(3).
* Criminal procedure – preliminary hearing – non-compliance with section 192(3) Criminal Procedure Act – fatal irregularity.
* Evidence – complainant’s testimony – contradictions and absence of eyewitnesses – lack of corroboration renders conviction unsafe.
* Medical evidence (PF3) – timing anomalies and conclusory findings – cannot substitute for identification of accused.
* Criminal procedure – admission of report – non-compliance with section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act (right to summon/cross-examine author) is fundamental.
|
12 October 2009 |
|
Statutory rape requires proof of victim’s age beyond reasonable doubt; lack of such proof quashes conviction.
Criminal law – statutory rape (s.130 Penal Code) – consent immaterial; prosecution must prove victim’s age beyond reasonable doubt; in‑court particulars insufficient to prove age; conviction set aside for failure to prove age.
|
10 October 2009 |
|
Conviction unsafe: the appellant’s visual and voice identification, unexplained arrest delay and lack of medical evidence led to quashing.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification at night by torch light – voice identification – contradictions in witness accounts – unexplained delay in arrest – absence of medical (PF3) or investigative records – conviction unsafe and quashed.
|
9 October 2009 |
|
Night-time torch and voice identification, unexplained arrest delay and missing medical evidence rendered conviction unsafe.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – night-time visual identification by torch-light – risk of mistaken identity and requirement to eliminate all possibilities of error. * Criminal law – voice identification – unreliable without independent corroboration. * Criminal procedure – unexplained delay in arrest and absence of medical reports (PF3) weaken prosecution case. * Criminal appeal – contradictions in witness accounts may render conviction unsafe.
|
9 October 2009 |
|
Where a plea and circumstances suggest possible insanity, the trial court must order medical examination under section 220(1) before accepting the plea.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence against a child – Plea of guilty – Mental capacity and voluntariness of plea – Section 220(1) Criminal Procedure Act – Duty to order medical examination where insanity suggested – Sentencing: mandatory life under section 154(2) for offences against children under ten.
|
9 October 2009 |
|
Appeal allowed where identification, exhibit chain of custody, and trial magistrate's failure to consider defence undermined conviction.
Criminal law – Identification evidence; chain of custody for exhibits; hearsay and second‑hand testimony; trial judge's duty to consider and give reasons for rejecting defence; conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
|
9 October 2009 |
|
Appellant's armed-robbery conviction quashed due to weak identification, broken chain of custody, contradictory arrests, and unaddressed defence.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – identification evidence – failure to identify assailants by name or adequate description undermines prosecution case; * Evidence – exhibits/chain of custody – failure to call the person who recovered exhibits renders connection to accused doubtful/hearsay; * Evidence – contradictions in arrest accounts weaken prosecution credibility; * Criminal procedure – duty of trial court to analyze and give reasons when rejecting accused's defence; * Standard of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
9 October 2009 |
|
High Court grants bail in Economic Crimes case, holding half-value cash-deposit mandatory but shareable among co-accused.
Economic crimes – Bail – High Court jurisdiction under s.29(4) and s.36(7) of Economic Crimes Act – Mandatory half-value cash deposit under s.36(4)(e)/36(5) – D.P.P. need not file affidavit to verify charge-sheet amount – Sharing of mandatory deposit among jointly charged accused permitted.
|
9 October 2009 |
|
Failure of a trial court to re-read and explain the charge requires retrial; appellate court should not penalise the accused for that omission.
Criminal procedure – charge to accused – duty of trial court to read and explain charge in language accused understands when trial commences; failure to do so attracts retrial where it occasioned failure of justice; appellate court should not penalise accused for trial court’s omission; remedy for procedural defect is retrial.
|
7 October 2009 |
|
Failure to re‑read and explain charges by the trial court warrants retrial, not outright quashing of proceedings.
Criminal procedure – duty of trial court to read and explain charge (especially after change of presiding officer) – effect of failure to read/explain charge – remedy is retrial where failure occasioned failure of justice – appellate review of primary court procedural omissions.
|
7 October 2009 |
|
Interim injunction granted to prevent respondent selling competitors' petroleum using applicant's equipment pending trial.
* Civil procedure – Interlocutory injunction – Applicant must show serious question to be tried, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.
* Contract law – Retail agreement and exclusivity – breach by outsourcing and use of supplied equipment for competitors' products.
* Remedies – Loss of market share may constitute irreparable harm not adequately compensable by damages; injunction appropriate pending determination.
|
6 October 2009 |
|
|
5 October 2009 |
|
An interlocutory application is incompetent if it cites general provisions instead of the specific Order XXXVII rules governing the relief.
Civil procedure – execution of decree – sale in execution – relief to set aside sale for irregularity under Order XXI r.88(1) – interlocutory orders generally under sections 68 and 95 CPC – where specific rules (Order XXXVII) exist, specific provisions must be cited – wrong enabling provision renders application incompetent.
|
5 October 2009 |
|
Interlocutory challenge to sale in execution struck out for relying on wrong enabling provisions.
Execution of decree – challenge to sale in execution for irregularity – remedy under Order XXI r.88(1); interlocutory relief governed by Order XXXVII – general provisions (s.68, s.95) not a substitute for specific rules; citing wrong enabling provision renders application incompetent.
|
5 October 2009 |
|
Appeal allowed because identification at night was unsafe given unclear lighting and trial court failed to warn itself.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – visual identification at night – requirement to establish sufficient lighting and safety of identification evidence.
* Evidence – inconsistencies in witness testimony as to dates and investigator records – apparent versus real discrepancies when reading evidence as a whole.
* Criminal procedure – duty of trial court to warn itself about the risks of convicting on identification alone; appellate intervention where identification is unsafe.
|
5 October 2009 |
|
Appeal allowed: unsafe night-time visual identification and trial court's failure to assess light evidence led to quashed convictions.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night – adequacy of light and necessity for trial court to assess/warn on safety of identification. * Criminal procedure – Effect of minor discrepancies in date/time of offence – apparent vs. material contradictions. * Evidence – Totality of prosecution evidence must be considered; doubts resolved for accused.
|
5 October 2009 |
|
An application for certiorari/mandamus/prohibition is not a "suit" under s.106 and thus not subject to its one-month notice requirement.
Judicial review — certiorari/mandamus/prohibition — Whether such applications constitute a "suit" for purposes of statutory pre-action notice (s.106 Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act) — statutory interpretation of "suit" and scope of s.106(2) — prior authorities distinguishing review proceedings from civil suits.
|
5 October 2009 |
|
An application for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition is not a "suit" under s.106 and need not comply with the one‑month notice.
Administrative law — judicial review — certiorari, mandamus, prohibition — not "suits" under s.106 Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act — one‑month notice requirement inapplicable — distinction between civil suits and administrative review proceedings.
|
5 October 2009 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and an untendered exhibit failed to support a stealing conviction; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
Criminal law — Circumstantial evidence — Conviction requires evidence leading irresistibly to guilt; failure to tender exhibits in court and absence of police investigation undermine prosecution's case.
|
5 October 2009 |
|
Suing village officers personally for village land allocation was misjoinder; ward tribunal's defective composition nullified its proceedings.
Land law — Misjoinder of parties — Suing village officers personally versus suing village council as proper party; Ward Tribunal composition — section 11 Land Disputes Courts Act — mandatory requirement; procedural irregularity vitiates proceedings; remittal for rehearing.
|
5 October 2009 |
|
Applicant granted leave to file notice and memorandum of appeal out of time because the intended appeal was found arguable.
* Civil procedure — Leave to appeal out of time — Whether leave should be granted where delay is explained and intended appeal raises arguable issues.
* Appeal — Arguable grounds/overwhelming prospects — Court may grant leave if issues merit consideration on appeal.
* Procedure — Ex parte proceedings where respondent refuses service.
|
2 October 2009 |
| September 2009 |
|
|
Summary judgment refused where defendants’ written defences showed non-admission; case to proceed on evidence; jurisdictional challenge requires formal notice.
Civil procedure – summary judgment – Order 15 Rule 1 – requirement of admitted pleaded facts; Notice to produce – not part of pleadings but evidentiary; Jurisdictional objections – can be raised at any stage but require formal notice.
|
30 September 2009 |
|
Summary judgment refused: pleadings were contested; procedural formalities and jurisdictional objection addressed.
Civil procedure – Summary judgment (Order 15 r.1) – requirement that parties not be at issue; Procedure – Order XLIII r.2 not mandatory before Order 15 r.1; Evidence – notice to produce is evidentiary, not a pleading; Jurisdiction – objection may be raised at any stage but requires formal notice/application.
|
30 September 2009 |
|
Court granted six-month injunction against eviction where expired lease, s.82(1) protection and triable issue over recovery of improvement costs existed.
Land law – Temporary injunction – Prima facie case and balance of convenience – Statutory tenancy and s.82(1) Land Act – Recovery of improvement costs – Effect of correspondence and undertakings by lessor.
|
30 September 2009 |
|
A dispute arising from employment terms is a trade dispute for the Industrial Court; multiple procedural defects rendered the plaint incompetent.
* Employment law – trade dispute – dispute arising from terms and conditions of employment falls under Industrial Court jurisdiction.
* Civil procedure – joining persons of unsound mind – Order XXXI rr.1–2 and Order I r.8 require next friend/leave for representative suits.
* Constitutional remedies – Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act ss.5–6 prescribe petition procedure and required contents.
* Pleadings – Order VI r.15 requires proper verification specifying place and date; defective verification struck out.
* Advocates Act s.44 – documents must be endorsed by the drafter; unendorsed plaint unlawfully received.
* Pleadings – replies must plead facts not be framed as submissions containing law and evidence.
|
29 September 2009 |
|
Suit arising from employment terms struck out for lack of jurisdiction and multiple procedural defects.
Employment law – trade dispute; jurisdiction of High Court vs Industrial Court – Order XXXI (persons of unsound mind) and Order I r8 (representative suits) – Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (petition requirements s.5–6) – Order VI r15 (verification) – Advocates Act s.44 (endorsement) – defective pleadings and improper reply to defence.
|
29 September 2009 |
|
Court allowed appeal, applied statutory half-value cash deposit and sharing principle, and substituted stricter bail conditions.
* Criminal procedure — Bail — Appealability of bail orders.
* Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, s.36(4)(e) — Mandatory cash deposit equal to half the value where property value exceeds TShs.10,000,000.
* Sharing principle — Apportionment of statutory cash deposit among co-accused.
* Trial court error — Vacatur of non-compliant bail conditions and substitution of statutory-compliant conditions.
|
25 September 2009 |
|
Unreliable visual identification and failure to consider defence rendered the robbery conviction unsafe, and the appeal was allowed.
* Criminal law – Robbery with violence – visual identification – necessity for clear lighting, detailed description and consistency of witness accounts to ground a safe identification.
* Criminal procedure – Duty to consider accused’s defence (s.312 CPA) – failure to evaluate defence undermines conviction.
* Evidence – production of PF3 and explanation for arrest and recovery of exhibits material to prosecution case.
* Criminal appeals – extension of time and suo moto exercise of revision powers where notice was signed in custody.
|
25 September 2009 |
|
Court extended time suo moto, found identification and prosecution evidence unreliable, and allowed appeal setting aside conviction.
* Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Visual identification – adequacy of lighting and description – contradictions in witnesses undermining identification. * Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal filed late – court’s power to extend time suo moto where delay attributable to custodians. * Evidence – non-production of PF3 and unrecovered exhibits weakens prosecution case. * Trial fairness – requirement to consider defence under section 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
|
25 September 2009 |
|
|
25 September 2009 |
|
Preliminary objection that defendants are non-existent companies dismissed as mixed law and fact; amendment/joinder requires formal application.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – point of law versus mixed law and fact – allegation that defendants are non-existent companies cannot be decided summarily without evidence; Order 1 Rules 2 and 4 CPC – joinder, substitution and amendment of parties require proper application, court will not act sua sponte.
|
25 September 2009 |
|
A magistrates' court lacked jurisdiction over the land dispute; its proceedings and eviction decree were quashed.
* Land law – jurisdiction – effect of Land Disputes Courts Act No.2/2002 (s.3 & s.4) and s.167 Land Act – magistrates' courts lack civil jurisdiction in land disputes; proceedings without jurisdiction are a nullity.
* Civil procedure – validity of consent orders, ex parte judgments and execution – not reached where jurisdictional defect renders proceedings void.
* Execution – eviction under a decree founded on a nullity is improper; relief to vacate and account for mesne profits if matter is re‑instituted in competent court.
|
25 September 2009 |
|
|
25 September 2009 |
|
A court set aside a district court's property division for failing to protect the first wife's matrimonial interests.
Family law – division of matrimonial property – rights of first wife in properties acquired during monogamous marriage – effect of subsequent polygamous marriage – exercise of revisional powers under section 44(1)(b) Magistrates’ Courts Act – setting aside district court judgments for failure to consider interested parties.
|
25 September 2009 |
|
Court held EOCCA requires half-value cash bail for high-value property offences, shared equally among co-accused.
Bail — appealability of bail orders; EOCCA (s36(4)(e)) — mandatory cash deposit equal to half the value where property exceeds TShs.10,000,000; sharing principle — apportionment of required cash deposit among co-accused; computation and substitution of bail conditions.
|
25 September 2009 |
|
Court refused further extension to file a counter-affidavit but ordered the application to set aside dismissal to be heard.
Civil procedure – setting aside dismissal for non-appearance; extension of time to file affidavits; failure to file counter-affidavit does not automatically dispose of application; adjournments and interests of justice; hearing on merits required.
|
24 September 2009 |
|
Court refused further extension for a late counter-affidavit and ordered hearing on the application to set aside the dismissal.
* Civil procedure – application to set aside dismissal for non-appearance – requirement and effect of counter-affidavit – discretionary refusal of further extension of time where respondent repeatedly defaults – application to be heard on merits.
|
24 September 2009 |
|
Applicant’s malicious prosecution claim failed: respondent had bona fide reasonable grounds to report suspected attempted robbery.
* Malicious prosecution – elements: prosecution by defendant; favourable termination; absence of reasonable and probable cause; malice; damages. * Reasonable and probable cause – objective test applied to surrounding circumstances (sudden diversion, apparent attempt to seize property, flight to safety). * Bona fide suspicion – an honest belief founded on reasonable grounds negates malice. * Setting law in motion – reporting to police and causing arrest can be ‘setting law in motion’ but is not actionable if based on bona fide reasonable suspicion.
|
24 September 2009 |
|
A bona fide complainant who reasonably reports suspected attempted robbery to police does not incur liability for malicious prosecution.
Malicious prosecution — elements required; reasonable and probable cause; bona fide suspicion; complainant’s role in setting law in motion by reporting suspected crime to police; when private complainant may be liable for malicious prosecution.
|
24 September 2009 |
|
Application for extension of time struck out as incompetent for being brought under the wrong statutory provision.
Appellate procedure – extension of time – wrong enabling provision – omission to cite s.11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – jurisdictional defect; Amendment – when and how cure may be sought; Limitation and illegality arguments – raised but not decided; Civil Procedure – Order VIII r.14(2)(b) (ex parte proof) and Law of Limitation Act referenced.
|
24 September 2009 |
|
A revisional decision made without hearing the parties violates natural justice and is void.
Procedure — Revision — Determination without summons or proceedings; Natural justice — audi alteram partem; Constitutional right to be heard (Article 13(6)(a)) — Decision reached without hearing is void; Remedy — quashing and ordering rehearing de novo.
|
24 September 2009 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and recent possession supported burglary and stealing convictions; stealing sentence reduced to three years.
Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Circumstantial evidence and constructive breaking (use of key); recent possession doctrine; admissibility and weight of purchasers’ evidence; accomplice testimony and corroboration; sentencing reduction for disproportionality.
|
23 September 2009 |
|
Circumstantial proof and recent-possession inference sustain burglary and stealing convictions; stealing sentence reduced to three years.
Criminal law – burglary and stealing – circumstantial evidence and constructive breaking (use of key) – recent possession doctrine – accomplice versus innocent purchaser evidence – Evidence Act ss.33 and 142 – sentence reduction.
|
23 September 2009 |
|
Appeal struck out as incompetent due to a defective decree bearing a date inconsistent with the judgment; counsel must seek registry correction.
Civil procedure — appellate jurisdiction — preliminary objection on record defects — decree bearing a date different from judgment pronouncement — incompetency of appeal; duty of counsel to check and rectify defective judgment/decree.
|
22 September 2009 |