|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2010 |
|
|
The applicant’s out‑of‑time review seeking re‑evaluation of evidence is time‑barred and not maintainable; appeal required.
Civil Procedure — Review — time limit for review applications (60 days) — review filed after long delay hopelessly time‑barred; O. XLII r.1 CPC — limited grounds for review (new evidence, mistake apparent on face of record) — re‑evaluation of evidence is appellate, not review, remedy; functus officio — court cannot revisit merits awardable only on appeal.
|
30 December 2010 |
|
The appellants' convictions quashed for unreliable identification, contradictory prosecution evidence, and conviction on wrong offence.
* Criminal law – robbery with violence – reliability of identification evidence at night – contradictions in prosecution witnesses – insufficiency of investigation and exhibits – conviction on wrong offence (armed robbery) – failure to evaluate defence and give reasons rendering conviction unsafe.
|
29 December 2010 |
|
|
28 December 2010 |
|
Unproven construction cost claims and prolonged rent default justified lawful termination and vacant possession; appeal dismissed with costs.
Landlord-tenant law – Termination for non-payment of rent; proof of set-off for tenant-built improvements – requirement of receipts/contractor evidence; validity and service of notice to vacate; appellate review of procedural complaints (fresh evidence, assessor qualification).
|
22 December 2010 |
|
Armed robbery conviction quashed for insufficient and uncorroborated evidence; appellant ordered released.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – sufficiency of evidence; identification – known person identification; uncorroborated testimony – weight of single witness evidence; admissibility and weight of statements of absent witnesses under Evidence Act s.34B(2); appellate intervention where conviction not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
22 December 2010 |
|
Court dismissed defendant’s res sub judice and abuse-of-process objections; no identity of issues, suit proceeds.
Civil Procedure – Res sub judice (s.8 CPC) – requirement of direct and substantial identity of issues; enforcement of guarantee vs separate claims; abuse of process – preliminary objection must be a pure point of law (Mukisa test); fraud and forum shopping not established.
|
21 December 2010 |
|
Whether a public officer abused office by authorising major contract variations without prior Board approval.
Penal law – Abuse of office – authorising contract variations without prior board approval; statutory interpretation – Governor’s management powers vis‑à‑vis Board; superior’s illegal order not a defence; evaluation of witness credibility; discretion on sentence under s.35 Penal Code.
|
21 December 2010 |
|
The appellant convicted for abuse of office for authorising unauthorised project variations; unlawful superior orders provided no defence.
Abuse of office; burden of proof in criminal cases; superior orders defence; statutory construction of Bank of Tanzania Act s.14(1)-(2); invalidity of retrospective approvals for unauthorised expenditures; credibility of interested witnesses; sentencing discretion under s.35 Penal Code.
|
21 December 2010 |
|
Enlargement of time under section 93 requires sufficient proof of good cause; unproven bereavement is insufficient.
* Civil Procedure – section 93 CPC – enlargement of time – discretion requires sufficient reasons/good cause.* Proof required for bereavement excuse – affidavit or documentary evidence (e.g., death certificate) necessary.* Procedural consequence – failure to file submissions as ordered amounts to failure to appear/prosecute and can justify dismissal.* Court may proceed to hear main application where extension is refused.
|
20 December 2010 |
|
Whether an objection to execution is time-barred and whether time runs from service of the execution notice.
* Civil procedure – Execution – Objection to execution – Whether objection is time-barred and when limitation begins to run (service of execution notice). * Procedural remedy – Quashing appellate proceedings and remitting primary court file for consideration of objection. * Magistrates' Courts Act s.22 referenced in submissions but not substantively argued.
|
20 December 2010 |
|
Court dispensed with conciliation-certificate requirement under s.101(f) and upheld respondent’s custody order; appeal dismissed with costs.
* Family law – Divorce – Requirement to refer matrimonial disputes to a Marriage Conciliation Board and certificate under section 101 – scope of s.101(f) proviso permitting courts to dispense with referral where impracticable.
* Administrative/Statutory interpretation – What constitutes a Marriage Conciliation Board and formal certificate under the Law of Marriage Act and Regulations.
* Child custody – Best interests of the child; custody awards not required to be time-limited to age seven; variation/rescission of custody orders under sections 133 and 134.
|
20 December 2010 |
|
Bank breached banker–customer relationship by refusing a valid board resolution; title deed withheld but damages unproven.
Company law – validity of board resolution as mandate to bank; Banker–customer relationship – duty to act on valid customer instructions; Freezing accounts – when unjustified; Security return – certificate of title after loan repayment; Assessment of damages – necessity of trading records and financial evidence.
|
20 December 2010 |
|
|
20 December 2010 |
|
An ex parte ward-tribunal judgment without proof of service cannot stand; appeal should be remitted for de novo inter partes hearing.
Land procedure — ex parte ward-tribunal decisions — requirement of proof of service/summons; Appellate jurisdiction — duty to remit under s.35(1) vs rehearing; Additional evidence — s.34(b) inapplicable where no trial evidence; Recordal of refusal to accept summons.
|
16 December 2010 |
|
|
16 December 2010 |
|
Reported
|
16 December 2010 |
|
An appellate court cannot order retrial absent a defective trial; subsequent retrial and conviction were nullified and acquittal restored.
Criminal procedure – retrial – appellate court ordering retrial – retrial permissible only where original trial was defective or jurisdictionally flawed; improper retrial and subsequent conviction nullified; original acquittal restored.
|
15 December 2010 |
|
Plaintiff awarded Tshs.32,000,000 and interest after seller failed to refund under an agreement to discharge sale obligations.
* Contract law – Sale of goods – Evidence of sale (written sale agreement, bank receipt, shipping and inspection documents) establishes purchase and payment. * Contract discharge – Agreement to discharge obligations – failure by seller to perform agreed refund obliges seller to repay agreed sum. * Civil procedure – substituted service and ex parte proof where defendants cannot be served – judgment may be entered on evidence adduced. * Remedies – contractual refund and contractual/ statutory interest; costs awarded to successful plaintiff.
|
15 December 2010 |
|
Applicant failed to prove material change to vary existing custody; child’s best interests require maintaining original custody order.
* Family law – Custody – Variation of custody orders under s.133 Law of Marriage Act – requirement of misrepresentation, mistake of fact or material change in circumstances. * Child welfare – Best interests of the child paramount in custody disputes. * Civil procedure – Court’s power to cure procedural defects (ss.95–96 CPC). * Statutory interpretation – s.139 LMA does not authorise orders restraining interference with custody of an infant.
|
15 December 2010 |
|
|
15 December 2010 |
|
A preliminary objection on lack of locus standi cannot succeed where factual issues require evidence at trial.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – locus standi – where objection raises mixed questions of fact and law it cannot be decided without evidence at trial – Mukisa Biscuits principle applies.* Lease and commercial relationship – alleged obligations to pay taxes – factual proof required to establish interest or rights of non-signatory party.* Authorities – Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd.; Bikubwa Ali v Sultan Mohamed Zahran; locus standi governed by common law (Rujuna Shubi Ballonzi).
|
14 December 2010 |
|
A preliminary objection denying locus standi was dismissed because the issue raised factual questions requiring evidence at trial.
* Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Locus standi – Where locus depends on factual involvement it is a matter for trial; preliminary objections should raise pure points of law only; Mukisa Biscuits principle applies.
|
14 December 2010 |
|
Ward Tribunal’s improper membership breached statutory requirements, justifying nullification and dismissal of the appeal.
* Land disputes – Ward Tribunal composition – Requirement under section 11, Land Disputes Courts Act – Irregular membership and participation – Fatal irregularity and nullification of proceedings. * Civil procedure – appellate review – relevance of prior unrelated decisions. * Costs – discretionary award under Civil Procedure law; each party to bear own costs.
|
14 December 2010 |
|
Failure to serve the Attorney General with a valid 90‑day notice rendered the suit against the government incompetent and struck out.
* Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 5) s.6(1)–(3) – Notice of intention to sue – Requirement to send copy to Attorney General and to wait at least 90 days before instituting proceedings – non‑compliance renders suit incompetent and subject to striking out. * Amended plaint – subsequent amendment does not cure jurisdictional defect caused by failure to comply with statutory pre‑action notice requirements.
|
14 December 2010 |
|
Execution allowed to proceed subject to a prior registered debenture charge; perpetual injunction refused.
* Civil procedure – Order XXI Rules 57, 58, 59, 61 – objection to attachment by third‑party secured creditor – court’s investigative powers and discretion to continue attachment subject to prior charge. * Company/secured transactions – debenture (fixed and floating charge) – registration under Companies Act and stamp duty issues – rescheduling vs. creation of new charge. * Remedies – interplay between Order XXI objection proceedings and remedies under Companies Act (appointment of receiver/winding up). * Property law – reservation of title prevents charged asset being validly charged by debtor. * Execution – garnishee compliance and alleged contempt.
|
13 December 2010 |
|
Conviction for armed robbery quashed where seized items were not identified and key witnesses were not produced.
Criminal law – armed robbery – identity and recent possession – recovered property must be specifically linked to alleged stolen items; absence of seizure certificate and failure to call key witnesses undermines prosecution case.
|
13 December 2010 |
|
Amendment to add a defendant does not revive an expired limitation period; expired defamation claim dismissed and defunct PCB struck out.
Limitation of actions – defamation subject to three‑year limitation – amendment of plaint does not revive expired limitation; ministerial extension required where applicable; limitation is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time; statutory successor body replaces repealed public entity as proper defendant.
|
13 December 2010 |
|
|
13 December 2010 |
|
The appellant convicted for abusing office by authorising major project changes without required Board approval.
* Criminal law – abuse of office – public officer authorising major contract variations without prior board approval – documentary proof (letters) and witness testimony. * Administrative law – limits of executive/managerial powers under Bank of Tanzania Act – Governor not sole management; Board’s budgetary and approval functions mandatory. * Evidence – assessment of credibility; non-production of some documents not fatal absent materiality. * Sentencing – application of section 35 Penal Code; custodial sentence justified by public interest.
|
12 December 2010 |
|
Child welfare, not speculative appellate findings, governs custody; district court's speculative reversal quashed and trial order restored.
* Family law – custody of children – best interests of the child paramount – appellate court must base reversal on evidence, not speculation.
* Civil procedure – substituted service and ex parte proceedings where respondent absents; effect on proceedings.
* Evidence – appellate findings must be supported by trial record; unproven assertions (e.g., house/means) cannot justify alteration of custody orders.
* Customary law – asserted customs not codified or proved carry limited weight in custody disputes.
|
11 December 2010 |
|
Reported
Appeal dismissed except conspiracy conviction quashed; forgery, personation and obtaining by false pretences upheld.
Criminal law – Forgery – alteration of certificate of occupancy – forgery of document of title to land; Obtaining by false pretences – inducing payment by false representation; Personating – false representation as owner; Conspiracy to defraud – requirement to plead and prove statutory ingredients; Change of magistrate – section 214 CPA and material prejudice.
|
10 December 2010 |
|
Convictions for forgery, personation and obtaining by false pretence upheld; conspiracy conviction quashed for wrong charge and insufficient evidence.
Criminal law – obtaining by false pretence (s.302 Penal Code) – forgery by alteration of certificate of occupancy (ss.333, 335(b), 337, 338 Penal Code) – personation (s.369 Penal Code); Criminal procedure – change of magistrate and s.214 CPA – material prejudice test; Charging particulars – wrong statutory citation (s.386 v. s.306) and effect on conviction; Sentencing – application of s.338 for documents of title to land.
|
10 December 2010 |
|
An application for extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal cannot be brought under the Limitation Act.
* Civil procedure – Appeal – Extension of time/leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal – Limitation Act inapplicable to Court of Appeal matters; governed by Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Court of Appeal Rules. * Procedural competence – Wrong citation of statute renders application incompetent; application struck out. * Ex parte procedure where respondent absent.
|
10 December 2010 |
|
Revision filed eight years after the primary court decision was time‑barred; settlement and consent were held valid.
Magistrates' Courts Act s.22(4) – revision time‑bar; limitation runs from primary court decision date – application for extension required if delayed; Fifth Schedule Rule 2(c) – revocation of administrator for fraud requires proof; consent settlement and primary court record as evidence of heirs' agreement.
|
8 December 2010 |
|
|
8 December 2010 |
|
High Court holds that appeals to it must be by written petition; oral appeals rule applies only to Primary Court to District Court appeals.
Civil procedure – Appeals from District Court to High Court – Requirement of written petition under s.25 Magistrates' Courts Act and Rules 4–5 (Appeals Originating in Primary Courts) – Oral recording of grounds under rule 5(2) limited to Primary Court to District Court appeals – Application of Law of Limitation Act exclusion for time to obtain copies.
|
8 December 2010 |
|
An appeal to the High Court must be by written petition; time to obtain judgment copies may be excluded from limitation.
Appeals — procedure — appeals from District Court to High Court must be by written petition filed in District Court; Rules 4 and 5's oral procedure applies only to Primary Court to District Court appeals — Limitation — appellant entitled to rely on exclusion for time obtaining copies of judgment.
|
8 December 2010 |
|
Whether an appeal to the High Court must be instituted by written petition, affecting limitation time to appeal.
Civil procedure – Appeals from District Court to High Court – written Petition of Appeal required under section 25 Magistrates' Courts Act – Rules 4 and 5 (Civil Procedure (Appeals Originating in Primary Courts) Rules) – oral grounds limited to Primary Court to District Court appeals – Law of Limitation Act s.19 exclusion for time to obtain copies applies.
|
8 December 2010 |
|
Appeals from the District Land and Housing Tribunal in original jurisdiction are subject to a 45-day limitation running from supply of appeal documents; late appeals are struck out.
* Limitation of actions – Appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal exercising original jurisdiction – Law of Limitation Act (Cap 89) prescribes 45 days for appeals where no other period is provided. * Computation of time – limitation period for appeal runs from supply of necessary documents (certified judgment and proceedings). * Procedural law – an appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period is incurably time-barred and liable to be struck out.
|
8 December 2010 |
|
An appeal from the District Land Tribunal was struck out for being filed 47 days after documents, exceeding the 45-day limit.
Limitation of actions — Appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal exercising original jurisdiction — Law of Limitation Act (Cap 89) Part II Item 2 prescribes 45 days — computation of time begins from supply of necessary appeal documents (Mary Kimaro v. Khalfani Mohamed).
|
8 December 2010 |
|
An order overruling preliminary objections in a review application is interlocutory and not appealable under section 43.
* Civil procedure – interlocutory orders – definition and appealability under section 43 Magistrates' Courts Act (as amended by Act No.25 of 2002).
* Review proceedings – distinction between separate review applications and non-duplicity.
* Functus officio – when a subordinate court may still hear subsequent review applications.
* Preliminary objection – competence of appeal where impugned order is interim.
|
7 December 2010 |
|
Suit dismissed as res judicata; issues should have been raised in prior litigation between the same parties.
Civil Procedure - Res judicata - fundamental jurisdictional questions - constructive res judicata - litigation finality.
|
6 December 2010 |
|
Appeal allowed where identification, uncorroborated co-accused evidence and inconsistencies rendered convictions unsafe.
Identification — dock identification without an identification parade is weak; need for contemporaneous description; corroboration required for co-accused evidence; voluntariness of cautioned/confessional statement — burden on prosecution; contradictions and improbabilities may vitiate prosecution case.
|
3 December 2010 |
|
A tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide disputes over estate property after the respondent has been granted administration.
Land law; jurisdiction – disputes over property forming part of a deceased’s estate; probate/primary court versus land tribunals; lack of jurisdiction renders proceedings nullity ab initio; appeal dismissed; possessor/administrator entitled to continue possession.
|
2 December 2010 |
|
The applicant’s freedom of conscience protected refusal to sing the national anthem; compulsory singing and expulsions were unconstitutional.
Constitutional law – freedom of conscience (Art. 19(1)) – religious objection to singing national anthem – Ministerial directive and school circular – validity of expulsions and suspensions for refusal to sing – interplay with Articles 12, 13 and 29.
|
2 December 2010 |
|
Requirement to sing the national anthem does not violate students’ constitutional freedom of religion; suspensions and expulsions upheld.
Constitutional law — freedom of religion (Article 19(1)) — limits and permissible restrictions; equality and non-discrimination (Article 13) — neutral school directives; administrative powers in education — validity of ministerial circulars; disciplinary measures in schools — expulsion/suspension for refusal to sing national anthem.
|
2 December 2010 |
|
Conviction quashed where undocumented identification, evidential gaps and an illegal 20-year sentence undermined proof of robbery.
Criminal law – Robbery (ss 285 & 286 Penal Code) – visual identification and identification parade – inadmissibility where parade not properly recorded – standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – failure to tender or link exhibits – illegal sentence where statutory amendment reduced maximum imprisonment.
|
1 December 2010 |
| November 2010 |
|
|
The appellant’s later probate suit was barred by res judicata; appeal dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure – Res judicata – Section 9 Civil Procedure Act – A subsequent probate suit raising the same parties and issues as an earlier competent court decision is barred as res judicata.
* Probate law – Administration of estates – Proper remedy is appeal from original probate determination, not instituting a fresh probate cause.
* Procedure – Competent jurisdiction and finality – requirements for res judicata (same parties, same title, same substantial issues, finally heard by competent court).
|
30 November 2010 |
|
Because the trial judgment omitted required points, decision and reasons, the appellant's conviction was declared a nullity and quashed.
Criminal procedure – Requirements of judgment under s.312 CPA – judgment must state points for determination, decision and reasons; Failure to comply renders judgment a nullity; Evidence – tendering of exhibits – failure to tender alleged housebreaking tools; Theft – ingredient of asportation not proved, evidence at best supports attempt; Retrial – limited where prosecution’s gaps would be filled impermissibly (Salim Bin Mohamed).
|
29 November 2010 |
|
Court granted extension to file application to set aside dismissal, finding applicant’s reliance on court clerks reasonable.
Extension of time – whether sufficient cause shown to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution – reasonable reliance on District Court clerks and distance as justification for delay – order to file application within fixed short period.
|
29 November 2010 |