|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2011 |
|
|
An appellate tribunal’s failure to state reasons and address grounds of appeal renders its judgment a nullity and warrants rehearing.
Land law — Appeals — District Land and Housing Tribunal — Mandatory contents of judgment (Reg.20(1)(a)-(d)) — Failure to consider grounds, frame issues or give reasons — Breach of natural justice — Judgment declared nullity and matter remitted for rehearing.
|
29 December 2011 |
|
A preliminary objection based on disputed service of notice of appeal was improper and was dismissed; each party to bear own costs.
Preliminary objection — must raise a pure point of law; cannot resolve factual disputes requiring evidence — stay of execution — relevance of Court of Appeal Rules on service of notice of intended appeal; Mukisa Biscuits principle applied.
|
29 December 2011 |
|
Landing contractor liable for negligent custody of container; plaintiff awarded customs-based refund, general damages, interest and costs.
* Commercial law – carriage/container custody – landing contractor’s duty of care for containers and contents; negligence for pilferage in defendant’s custody
* Evidence – valuation of lost goods – admissibility of pro forma invoice vs. reliance on customs release/declaration
* Remedies – award of pecuniary compensation based on customs-declared value, general damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs
|
29 December 2011 |
|
|
29 December 2011 |
|
Suing a company’s managing director in his official capacity is curable by substitution; misjoinder of plaintiffs upheld.
* Company law – separate legal personality – a limited liability company is distinct from its officers; actions against officers in their official designation are improper but curable by substitution. * Civil procedure – pleadings – Order VI r.14 CPC – omission of advocate's signature is procedural and curable; does not automatically vitiate plaint. * Civil procedure – joinder of plaintiffs – Order I r.1 and r.9 CPC – plaintiffs may be joined only where rights to relief arise out of the same act or series of acts and common questions of law or fact exist; misjoinder where transactions are distinct.
|
29 December 2011 |
|
An arbitration clause does not oust court jurisdiction where a defendant has taken steps in court instead of timely seeking a stay.
* Arbitration clause – effect on court jurisdiction; enforcement versus ouster of jurisdiction
* Arbitration Act, section 6 – stay of proceedings pending arbitration
* "Step in the proceedings" (e.g., filing written statement) bars later application for stay
* Judicial discretion in granting or refusing stays under arbitration agreements
|
29 December 2011 |
|
Petition for letters of administration granted where statutory publication, absence of caveat and documentary requirements were satisfied.
* Probate and Administration – Grant of letters of administration – intestacy – sufficiency of supporting documents under Probate Rules – publication of general citation and expiration of caveat period – effect of prior nullified probate proceedings.
|
23 December 2011 |
|
Court granted extension to appeal time due to counsel’s bereavement and verified illness of substitute counsel.
Extension of time — section 11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act and section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act — sufficiency of reasons — counsel’s bereavement and substitute’s illness as grounds — negligence/diary mismanagement ordinarily insufficient but facts may justify extension — appealability and merits not determined at extension stage.
|
23 December 2011 |
|
|
22 December 2011 |
|
Revision application dismissed: several complaints time‑barred and refusal to start trial de novo is not revisable.
Revision jurisdiction; interlocutory orders generally not revisable unless material error/injustice; time‑bar under Law of Limitation (60 days) for revisions; Order XVII r.10(1) — successor magistrate’s discretion to start afresh; Mukisa principle on preliminary objections.
|
20 December 2011 |
|
Expiry of a Speed Track does not automatically extinguish a suit; court may amend scheduling orders in the interests of justice.
Civil Procedure — Order VIIIA Rule 3(c) & Rule 4 — Speed Track allocation and computation; expiry of Speed Track does not automatically terminate suit; court may depart from/amend scheduling order in the interests of justice; such relief need not be constrained by Law of Limitation; striking out is not the necessary remedy for expired Speed Track.
|
20 December 2011 |
|
Appeal allowed: unsafe identification and improperly admitted/unsupported exhibits rendered conviction unsafe.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – requirements for reliable visual identification; necessity of detailed description and identification parade where assailant is a stranger.
* Evidence – Exhibits – admissibility and connexion of recovered weapon and documents; requirement to allow accused to be heard on objections.
* Evidence – Caution statement – right to comment and complaints of coercion before admission.
* Criminal procedure – Burden of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
19 December 2011 |
|
Reported
Unreliable identification and improperly admitted exhibits led to quashing of conviction and release of the appellant.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – necessity of detailed description and parade where assailant is a stranger; Evidence – exhibits must be properly connected and lawfully admitted; right to be heard before admission of documentary/caution statements; failure to prove case beyond reasonable doubt vitiates conviction.
|
19 December 2011 |
|
Conviction overturned where visual identification and documentary/forensic evidence were unreliable or improperly admitted.
Criminal law – Visual identification: requirements for light, description and identification parade; Evidence – admissibility and linkage of exhibits (firearm, clothing, document); Evidence – admissibility of caution statements and accused's right to be heard; Proof beyond reasonable doubt – appellate scrutiny of unsafe identification and improperly admitted exhibits.
|
19 December 2011 |
|
An application for leave to appeal filed after unwarrantable delay is incompetent; appeal struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – application for leave to appeal out of time – timeliness and competence – unwarranted delay under Customary Law Limitation Rules (Rule 5 GN.311 of 1964) – district court duty to determine competence before merits.
|
19 December 2011 |
|
District Land Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to treat a Ward Tribunal criminal trespass as a land appeal; proceedings quashed.
* Jurisdiction – District Land and Housing Tribunal – whether it may entertain a land appeal originating from a Ward Tribunal criminal trespass matter – jurisdictional limits and proper characterization of proceedings.
* Civil procedure – nullity of proceedings where no valid appeal exists.
* Land law – referral to Village Land Council for ownership determination versus criminal trespass proceedings.
|
19 December 2011 |
|
Allegations of judicial bias unsupported; refusal to address court is abuse—recusal denied and application dismissed with costs.
* Judicial recusal — standards for disqualification: need evidence of close relationship, personal bias or financial interest; mere apprehension without evidence insufficient (Rugaimukamu; Registered Trustees; Mwita Chacha). * Abuse of process — refusal to address the court to have a compromise (Deed) registered may be an abuse; court may invoke inherent powers (s.95 CPC). * Counsel conduct — misrepresentation and intimidation of judicial officers may attract disciplinary or criminal consequences.
|
19 December 2011 |
|
Appellant convicted for stealing employer's cement; defence unsubstantiated and appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Stealing by servant (Penal Code ss. 270, 265) – Entrustment of employer's property and unauthorized disposal. * Evidence – Credibility findings; burden on accused to call witnesses to substantiate exculpatory claims; failure to call expected witness. * Proof beyond reasonable doubt – sufficiency where documentary issue note and consistent witness testimony establish loss.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Application to set aside dismissal for non-appearance dismissed as lacking sufficient cause and rendered futile; High Court lacked jurisdiction to stay execution.
Civil Procedure — Order IX Rule 9(1) & s95 CPC — setting aside dismissal for non-appearance — sufficient cause; Stay of execution — jurisdiction after Court of Appeal determination; Remedy for judgment alleged obtained by fraud — appeal/revision versus fresh suit.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Revocation of the applicant's letters of administration without hearing was a nullity and was quashed.
* Probate law – revocation of letters of administration – necessity to afford administrator opportunity to be heard; failure to consider defence renders decision a nullity.
* Natural justice – audi alteram partem – service/notice and right to be heard; absence without proof of notice does not validate in‑absentia revocation.
* Civil procedure – nullity of proceedings where party denied hearing; appellate power to quash and restore administration.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Revocation of letters of administration without hearing violates natural justice and is a nullity; administrator restored.
Probate and administration – Revocation of letters of administration – Natural justice – right to be heard – failure to consider defence renders decision a nullity – appellate quash and restoration of administrator.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
The court held all biological children are heirs regardless of legitimacy and ordered sale with equal distribution including two ex-wives.
* Probate — Intestate succession — entitlement of all biological children irrespective of legitimacy or type of parental marriage; * Contributions by former spouses — not a basis for exclusive inheritance rights; * Administration — court orders sale of disputed property and equal distribution of proceeds; * Rent collected — to be paid to deceased's children only.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Drug trafficking is an unbailable offence; charge was sufficient and bail application dismissed.
Criminal procedure — Bail — Illicit drug trafficking excluded from grant of bail by statute; sufficiency of charge under s.132 Criminal Procedure Act; certificate of value not an ingredient of trafficking offence.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Appeal allowed where unreliable identification, unrebutted alibi and procedural irregularities made prosecution evidence insufficient.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – identification evidence – contradictions between witnesses and need for watertight recognition evidence. * Criminal law – alibi – prosecution’s burden to rebut alibi; absence of arrest evidence weakens prosecution case. * Criminal procedure – PF3 (Exhibit P1) – non‑compliance with section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act and right to summon medical officer; fundamental irregularity. * Evidence – failure to produce alleged stolen property as exhibit and discrepancies in record – cumulative effect may amount to miscarriage of justice.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Where the respondent was despecified, the Parastatal Sector Reform Commission need not be joined and may be struck.
Parastatal despecification — effect of despecification on liability — role of Parastatal Sector Reform Commission as official receiver — misjoinder of parties — preliminary objection — striking out party.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Despecification of a parastatal removes basis to join its former receiver; defendant struck out for misjoinder.
* Parastatal law – despecification – effect of despecification on legal status of parastatal and its receiver
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – misjoinder of parties – striking out defendant for lack of legal basis to join
* Statutory instruments – GN despecification notices determine whether receiver may be joined
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Trial Magistrate’s demand that the applicant prove beyond the balance of probabilities was a miscarriage of justice; retrial ordered.
Civil procedure — Standard of proof — Balance of probabilities is the applicable standard in civil matters; requiring a higher standard is misdirection and a miscarriage of justice — Quashing of impugned decision and order for retrial de novo — Costs: each party to bear own costs.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Court reduced excessive instruction and attendance fees and taxed the bill of costs at Tzs. 8,115,000/=.
* Taxation of costs – instruction fees – factors: suit value, subject matter, complexity, time, research, parties' conduct.
* Advocates' Remuneration – GN 515/91 scales outdated – taxing master may adjust awards to achieve fair compensation.
* Taxation – attendance, ADR and disbursements – reduction where excessive or where adjournments caused by judgment debtor.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
A clerical date error on letters of administration is not forgery; District Court reversal quashed and Primary Court grant restored.
Probate and administration – grant of Letters of Administration – clerical error in date does not amount to forgery – citation publication – revisional jurisdiction – impropriety of ex parte decision without examining court record.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
A decree dated differently from the judgment renders the appeal incompetent and leads to striking out with costs.
Civil Procedure – Appeal competency – Decree must bear date of judgment and be signed (Order XX Rule 7 CPC); uncertified or improperly dated decree is not a decree in law and renders appeal incompetent; memorandum of appeal endorsement requirements; defective decree justifies striking out appeal with costs.
|
15 December 2011 |
|
Extension of time to appeal refused: illness unproven and application procedurally defective, dismissed with costs.
Limitation of actions – Extension of time under section 14 Law of Limitation Act – illness as cause of delay – evidentiary requirements for medical proof (affidavit/hospital records) – competency/clarity of chamber summons and proper framing of prayer under Civil Procedure provisions.
|
15 December 2011 |
|
Statutory prohibition of bail for money laundering is constitutional; PCCB lawfully investigated and prosecuted related offences.
Constitutional law – bail – section 148(5)(a)(v) CPA – money laundering – presumption of innocence – proportionality test; Separation of powers – judicial discretion and statutory bar on bail; Criminal procedure – High Court powers (s.149 CPA) limited where legislature expressly prohibits bail; Anti‑corruption enforcement – PCCA powers, DPP supervisory control, NPSA s.22 and GN No.169/2008 authorising PCCB officers to prosecute offences discovered during corruption probes.
|
15 December 2011 |
|
Court upholds non‑bailability for money‑laundering charges and confirms PCCB’s authority to prosecute offences arising in corruption investigations.
Constitutional law — bail — money laundering non-bailable under section 148(5)(a)(v) CPA; proportionality and Oakes-type justification; separation of powers — legislature may prescribe non-bailable offences without usurping judicial function; PCCB mandate — power to investigate/prosecute offences discovered in corruption probes under DPP supervision (s.22 NPSA 2008; GN No.169/2008); PCCB not liable under s.8(4) PCCA 2007 for lawful arrests/searches/prosecutions.
|
15 December 2011 |
|
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the Revision Panel validly ordered execution and functus officio/res judicata did not apply.
Industrial Court — Revision powers under section 28 — Execution of award — Whether previous revisions barred execution; Civil procedure — functus officio and res judicata — requirements not met; Appeals — effect of notice of appeal and stay of execution; Adequacy of reasons — Panel’s consideration of grounds; Order certainty and enforceability.
|
15 December 2011 |
|
Applicant withdrew an urgent application for injunction and stay; court marked it withdrawn and awarded costs to respondent.
* Civil procedure – Withdrawal/abandonment of proceedings – Court may mark application withdrawn where applicant files notice and withdrawal is unopposed; costs may be awarded.
* Interim relief – Temporary injunction and stay of execution – application overtaken by events may be properly withdrawn.
|
14 December 2011 |
|
A time-barred appeal lacking proper grounds may be summarily dismissed under section 28(3) of the Magistrates' Court Act.
Magistrates' Court Act s.28(3) – summary dismissal of appeals; time‑barred appeals; requirement to apply for extension of time; distinction between explanations and grounds of appeal.
|
14 December 2011 |
|
Convictions for trespass and malicious damage arising from a land dispute were quashed; land disputes should first be determined by Land Court/Tribunal.
Criminal law – Trespass and malicious damage arising from land dispute – Where dispute is essentially about land, it should ordinarily be determined by a Land Court/Tribunal before criminal prosecution; defective trial record may render convictions unsafe.
|
13 December 2011 |
|
Conflicting duplicate Ward Tribunal judgments vitiated the record, so proceedings were nullified and a retrial ordered.
* Land law – conflicting tribunal records – effect of duplicate and inconsistent Ward Tribunal decisions on subsequent appeals * Civil procedure – nullification of proceedings where lower tribunal issues two different awards on same cause of action * Remedy – setting aside tainted records and ordering retrial before a differently constituted tribunal panel
|
13 December 2011 |
|
An application to restore a struck-out suit under section 95 CPC is time-barred and cannot circumvent the Limitation Act.
* Civil Procedure — Section 95 (inherent powers) — Inherent jurisdiction exercisable only where no specific statutory provision exists.
* Limitation — Law of Limitation Act, Part III item 21 — Applications under the Civil Procedure Code subject to 60-day limitation.
* Procedure — Restoration of suit struck out — application time-barred where filed after prescribed period; court functus officio as to orders of another judge.
|
13 December 2011 |
|
Basic Rights petition challenging repealed employment law was time‑barred, procedurally defective, and dismissed.
* Constitutional and administrative law – Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act petitions are civil suits for limitation purposes – six‑year limitation applies. * Effect of repeal – court cannot declare provisions of a repealed statute unconstitutional or revive dead law. * Public corporations in receivership – leave of court and joinder of official receiver required (Bankruptcy Ordinance s.9). * Government Proceedings – 90‑day notice under s.6(2) must be properly served and proved. * Joinder – Attorney General is a proper party in constitutional challenges to statutory provisions.
|
13 December 2011 |
|
A constitutional petition challenging a repealed employment law was time‑barred, overtaken by events, and dismissed with costs.
Constitutional petitions – Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act – whether such petitions are suits for limitation purposes; limitation period; effect of repeal of law on constitutional challenges; requirement of leave to sue specified public corporations under receivership (Bankruptcy Ordinance s.9); statutory notice to sue the Government (Government Proceedings Act s.6(2)).
|
13 December 2011 |
|
Under Islamic succession, a surviving wife with children is entitled to one‑eighth of the estate; executor must satisfy that share.
* Probate – Islamic succession – Applicability of Quranic shares where deceased professed Islam – Surah An‑Nisa (4:12) entitlement of surviving wife to one‑eighth where deceased left children.
* Testamentary capacity and limits – Muslim testator cannot dispose by will more than one‑third of estate after debts and legacies.
* Probate remedy – executor ordered to evaluate estate and satisfy Quranic kithumni share; transfer of property of equivalent value permitted.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
The objector-wife is entitled to one-eighth under Islamic inheritance; executor ordered to evaluate estate and satisfy that share.
Probate – Islamic succession – kithumni (one-eighth) entitlement where deceased left children – testamentary dispositions examined for equivalence – executor ordered to evaluate estate and satisfy wife's Islamic share.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Repeated applications to set aside an ex parte judgment were abuse of process; the proper remedy was appeal.
* Civil procedure – abuse of court process – repetition of applications previously decided; * Res judicata / functus officio – once matter decided trial court has no jurisdiction to re-determine it; * Execution – execution from a short judgment valid unless set aside by a superior court; * Right to be heard – available remedies are appeal, not repetitive applications; * Locus – objection to locus in a separate, unrelated suit is irrelevant when respondent later acquires locus.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Court grants extension to lodge appeal where court-made procedural defects and important land ownership issues show sufficient cause.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Application under Section 11 Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Granting enlargement where procedural defects caused by the court prevented timely appeal; * Decrees and judgments – unsigned decree and inconsistent dates – consequences and attribution of fault; * Appeals – importance of substantive issues (land ownership) as factor in exercising discretion to extend time.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Extension of time granted where court-caused decree defects and important land-ownership issues constituted good cause.
Appellate procedure – Extension of time under s.11 Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Court may grant enlargement where earlier appeal struck out due to court’s procedural defects (unsigned/incorrectly dated decree); substantive importance of issues (land ownership) can constitute good cause.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Court orders executor to value estate and pay the applicant one-eighth under Islamic inheritance law.
Probate and administration; Islamic succession law; entitlement of surviving wife to kithumni (1/8) where deceased left children; adequacy of testamentary provisions; executor ordered to value estate and satisfy one-eighth share (cash or equivalent property).
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed due to improperly admitted hearsay and unresolved reasonable doubts in prosecution's case.
Evidence — admissibility of extra‑judicial statements: section 34B Evidence Act; hearsay and procedural safeguards; Sexual offences — child victim evidence and sufficiency (sections 143 and 127(7) Evidence Act); Standard of proof and appellate re‑evaluation of safety of conviction.
|
8 December 2011 |
|
Extension of time to appeal Ward Tribunal decisions must be sought under s20(2) Land Disputes Courts Act, not Cap 89.
* Land law – appeals from Ward Tribunals – extension of time – correct provision: section 20(2) Land Disputes Courts Act, 2001. * Limitation – Law of Limitation Act (Cap 89) not applicable to Ward Tribunal appeals; applies to District Tribunal and High Court in original jurisdiction (s52(2) Land Disputes Courts Act). * Competence – applications/appeals based on wrong statute are incompetent and liable to be dismissed.
|
7 December 2011 |
|
Appeal allowed: adultery allegations unsupported by direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence and spouse's testimony was necessary.
Adultery — proof — direct (flagrante delicto) versus circumstantial evidence — adequacy of circumstantial proof; necessity of calling co-respondent's (spouse's) evidence where material; appellate review of concurrent findings where evidence demonstrably inadequate.
|
6 December 2011 |