|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2013 |
|
|
Preliminary objections raising factual deficiencies cannot dispose of an attachment application; objections dismissed and merits to proceed.
Labour law – interlocutory relief – attachment before pronouncement of award at CMA – jurisdictional limits of CMA to grant injunctions; Civil procedure – preliminary objections – Mukisa test – distinction between pure points of law and issues of fact/proof; Order XXXVI, Rule 6 CPC – compliance and particulars are matters for substantive hearing, not preliminary disposal.
|
31 December 2013 |
|
An application for leave to appeal filed under the Limitation Act was incompetent and struck out as time-barred.
Civil procedure – competence of application – application for leave to appeal – whether section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act applies to leave to file notice of appeal or leave to appeal to Court of Appeal. Limitation law – s.14(1) inapplicable to leave to appeal; s.43(b) disapplies Limitation Act to Court of Appeal matters. Preliminary objection – wrong provision of law renders application incompetent; time-barred applications may be struck out.
|
27 December 2013 |
|
An application for leave to appeal filed under the Limitation Act was incompetent and struck out as time-barred.
• Civil procedure – competence of applications – application founded on wrong or inapplicable statutory provision is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
• Limitation – s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act 1971 – does not apply to applications for leave to appeal or to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal where s.43(b) disapplies it.
• Appellate procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Appeal – procedural preconditions and correct statutory basis required.
|
27 December 2013 |
|
Application to review a jurisdictional ruling dismissed for failing to show an obvious error on the face of the record.
Labour procedure – Review under Rule 27(2) – scope: new evidence; manifest error on face of record; other sufficient reason; Judicial review vs appeal; Jurisdiction of CMA under paragraph 13 of 3rd Schedule to ELRA (including para 13(5)) – disputes originating from repealed laws and referrals by the Labour Commissioner; Error apparent on face requires obvious, self-evident mistake, not contested legal interpretation.
|
24 December 2013 |
|
The counter-claimant was defamed and unlawfully detained; awarded general damages but punitive damages denied.
Defamation – abusive words ("bastard", "idiot", "foolish") held defamatory when spoken in presence of others; False imprisonment/Unlawful detention – 45-minute confinement in bank store constitutes tort; Damages – general damages awarded, punitive damages require exceptional circumstances; Award of Tshs. 25,000,000/= and costs.
|
23 December 2013 |
|
Filing a memorandum of appeal without the judgment and decree renders the appeal incompetent and subject to striking out.
Civil procedure – Appeal from District Court – Requirement that memorandum of appeal be accompanied by copies of judgment and decree (Order XXXIX r.1 CPC); Competence of appeal – non-compliance with filing requirements; Remedy – striking out appeal for failure to comply and lack of satisfactory explanation; Proper remedy for delay – application for extension of time.
|
17 December 2013 |
|
A non-owner cannot claim demolition or mesne profits for a road-reserve encroachment; removal is for TANROADS.
Land law – road reserve – encroachment by private structure – measurements and locus in quo; Proprietary interest and locus standi – a non-owner cannot sue for demolition or mesne profits in respect of a road-reserve strip; Mesne profits/special damages – must be properly pleaded and supported by evidence; Public authority role – removal/enforcement of road-reserve encroachments lies with TANROADS, not private litigation.
|
16 December 2013 |
|
Amicable settlement efforts can suspend limitation; party referrals to court use a 60‑day period, so the dispute was not time‑barred.
Labour law — limitation periods for labour disputes; accrual of cause of action for unremitted union dues; effect of amicable settlement/negotiations in 'checking' limitation; applicable referral period to Court (15 days for Director referrals v. 60 days for party referrals); jurisdictional objection based on alleged time‑bar.
|
16 December 2013 |
|
Application for revision failed for lack of proper statutory grounds; CMA award upholding transfer and two months' compensation confirmed.
Labour law – Revision of CMA award – Section 91(2) ELRA and Rule 28 LC – Proper specification of statutory grounds for revision; Employment law – Transfer of employee – employer’s managerial prerogative; Harassment at workplace – burden to prove discrimination or prohibited grounds; Compensation for inconvenience – adequacy of two months' salary award.
|
16 December 2013 |
|
Court confirmed unfair dismissal, quashed alternative compensation and costs, and ordered reinstatement under section 40(1)(a).
Labour law – unfair dismissal – substantive and procedural unfairness – employer’s burden to prove misconduct and loss; Employment and Labour Relations Act s.40(1) – remedies after unfair termination – reinstatement v compensation; Arbitrator’s jurisdiction – cannot make alternative remedy orders inconsistent with statute; Costs in labour proceedings – require frivolous or vexatious conduct and compliance with Guidelines (Rule 31).
|
16 December 2013 |
|
Applicant lacked locus standi to sue administratrix and produced no authority to litigate for an adult beneficiary; application dismissed.
Probate and administration – locus standi to sue an administratrix – applicant not a beneficiary or creditor – third party suing for an adult beneficiary must show authority (e.g., power of attorney) – adult beneficiary’s capacity to sue.
|
13 December 2013 |
|
A supporting affidavit containing legal argument and prayers breaches Order XIX and renders the application incompetent and struck out.
Judicial review — preliminary objections — time limitation and extension of time; Affidavits — Order XIX Rules 1 & 3 Civil Procedure Code — affidavits confined to facts, not legal argument or prayers; Defective affidavit — expunge offensive paragraphs vs strike out application; Competence of application.
|
13 December 2013 |
|
Recording witness evidence in ‘reporting’ mode and admitting a repudiated cautioned statement without a trial within a trial vitiated the conviction.
Criminal procedure – Evidence – Recording of witness evidence – Section 210(1)(b) CPA requires narrative recording; ‘reporting’ mode is inadmissible; Repudiated cautioned/confessional statement – admissibility – requirement to hold trial within a trial; failure to do so is a fundamental irregularity warranting expungement and quashing of conviction.
|
13 December 2013 |
|
Whether the respondent bank’s initiation of criminal proceedings constituted malicious prosecution without reasonable and probable cause.
Malicious prosecution – Initiation of criminal proceedings by a corporate institution – Whether defendant acted with malice and without reasonable and probable cause; evidential sufficiency (hearsay) by bank investigators; damages for reputation loss, mental suffering, loss of liberty and business income; interest and costs.
|
13 December 2013 |
|
The plaintiff awarded damages for malicious prosecution after the defendant instigated baseless criminal proceedings.
Civil torts – Malicious prosecution – Whether defendant’s initiation of criminal proceedings through bank investigators amounted to malice and lack of reasonable and probable cause. Remedies – general damages for reputational harm, mental suffering, loss of liberty and business loss; interest and costs.
|
13 December 2013 |
|
A defamation claim was dismissed because it was instituted in the High Court instead of the competent lower court.
Civil procedure – jurisdiction – pecuniary jurisdiction determined by substantive claim not by pleaded quantum of general damages. Forum – defamation claims may be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try them (District/Resident Magistrate's Court). Inherent powers (s.95 CPC) – to be exercised cautiously and not to circumvent statutory forum rules. Suo motu jurisdictional objection – can be raised at any stage and is dispositive.
|
12 December 2013 |
|
The applicant (tenant) has no automatic right of first refusal; injunction denied where damages are adequate.
Civil procedure – interlocutory injunctions – three-part test (serious question, irreparable harm, balance of convenience). Public interest – relevant factor within balance of convenience, not an independent overriding principle. Property/tenancy – no automatic right of first refusal for sitting tenants absent contractual provision. Remedy – where damages are adequate (American Cyanamid principle), injunction will usually be refused.
|
11 December 2013 |
|
Tenants have no automatic right of first refusal; injunction refused where damages are adequate and balance of convenience disfavors tenants.
Injunctions – principles for interlocutory injunctions (Atilio/ American Cyanamid) – public interest/public policy as a factor in balance of convenience – absence of statutory or contractual right of first refusal for sitting tenants – adequacy of damages as alternative remedy.
|
11 December 2013 |
|
Criminal charges for damage to crops founded on disputed land ownership must await civil determination of title.
Criminal law – malicious damage to property – where subject land ownership is disputed the criminal charge should be stayed pending civil determination. Ward Tribunals – jurisdiction under s.9 – possess criminal jurisdiction but must not resolve matters dependent on undetermined land ownership. Civil v. criminal procedure – criminal proceedings predicated on disputed proprietary rights are irregular and void if ownership not finally determined.
|
10 December 2013 |
|
Power of attorney testimony is hearsay; premature auction before loan due date without amicable settlement is void.
Civil procedure – representation by relative/member of household – power of attorney – holder testifying for principal amounts to hearsay and trial court should direct principal to testify personally. Contract/construction – loan agreement ambiguities construed in favour of weaker party; repayment period determined by hand‑filled dates in agreement. Property/security enforcement – sale/auction of charged property prematurely and without pursuing agreed amicable settlement is null and void. Remedies – quashing of tribunal decision, restitution subject to payment of outstanding debt, costs awarded.
|
10 December 2013 |
|
Appeal allowed where tribunal wrongly preferred clerk's assertion over sworn medical and affidavit evidence; matter remitted for rehearing.
Land procedure – setting aside dismissal for non-appearance – sufficiency of cause where advocate was ill and allegedly misled about hearing date; credibility assessment between sworn affidavits and tribunal clerk's oral/diary assertion; written submissions as hearing equivalent and consequences of failure to file reply.
|
6 December 2013 |
|
High Court quashed tribunal's refusal to set aside dismissal, crediting sworn affidavits over the tribunal clerk's account.
Civil procedure – written submissions as hearing; non-compliance with filing timetable amounts to non-appearance; credibility — sworn affidavits and medical evidence preferred over clerk's oral/diary account; rehearing ordered before different chairman; costs awarded.
|
6 December 2013 |
|
Expiry of probation creates eligibility for confirmation, not automatic appointment; failure to follow fair probation procedures warrants compensation.
Labour law – probationary employment – expiry of probation renders eligibility for confirmation but does not automatically confer confirmed status. Labour law – reasonable expectation – employer conduct (continued work/pay/training) does not substitute for formal confirmation. Employment and Labour Relations Act – section 35 and GN 42/2007 (Code of Good Practice) – procedural requirements for probationary performance concerns: notice, opportunity to respond, reasonable time to improve. Remedies – failure to observe fair labour practice during probation may attract compensation.
|
6 December 2013 |
|
Second appeal dismissed: sale evidence upheld; appellant failed to prove clan ownership or misdirection by lower courts.
Land law – validity of sale agreements – proof by written, witnessed transactions and open occupation; Family/clan land – requirement for cogent evidence and proof of representative appointment; Second appeal – limited to points of law unless lower tribunals misdirected or failed to direct on evidence.
|
6 December 2013 |
|
Second appeal dismissed where appellant failed to prove family/clan title and lower tribunals correctly assessed the evidence.
Land law – proof of family/clan land – requirement of cogent evidence and proof of representation; Sale of land – written, witnessed transactions and open occupation establish title; Civil procedure – scope of second appeal limited to points of law absent misdirection or non‑direction by lower tribunals; Acquiescence/delay – prolonged non‑assertion of rights undermines later claims.
|
6 December 2013 |
|
Extension application struck out because affidavit was unlawfully attested by a commissioner with an interest.
Labour Court Rules – extension of time – Rule 56; Representative applications – Rule 44 – joint affidavit signed by all applicants removes need for representative leave; Preliminary objections – distinction between pure points of law and factual/discretionary matters; Commissioners for Oaths – Section 7 Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act – prohibition on attestation where commissioner is advocate or has interest; Effect of defective jurat – affidavit incompetency leads to striking out application.
|
6 December 2013 |
|
Respondent lacked locus standi and non-joinder of Nafuu Group and village council warranted quashing of the lower tribunals' decisions.
Land law – ownership dispute where prior allottee and village council’s authority to alienate are unclear – necessity of joining original allottee and village council as necessary parties. Civil procedure – locus standi – purchaser who buys land from a prior allottee lacks standing to sue a prior purchaser without joinder of the original allottee. Tribunals – procedural irregularity by failing to order joinder warrants quashing of decisions and fresh proceedings.
|
5 December 2013 |
|
Whether visual identification plus recent possession sufficed to convict the appellant of armed robbery.
Armed robbery — visual identification evidence — Turnbull principles; doctrine of recent possession; circumstantial corroboration of identification.
|
5 December 2013 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause for delay; CMA’s dismissal of time-barred dispute upheld.
Labour law – extension of time – discretion to extend time; sufficiency of cause – need to account for each day's delay and show diligence; bereavement as reason for delay; review of CMA awards for time-barred filings.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
The CMA's condonation granted without finding good cause and its hearing of time‑barred claims rendered it without jurisdiction, so the decision was quashed.
Labour law – limitation and jurisdiction – condonation – Rule 31 GN 64/2007; condonation requires good cause, not mere non‑objection; time‑barred claims (salary) cannot be entertained; CMA decision quashed for want of jurisdiction.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
An amendment to plead for specific damages that does not alter the cause of action is not an abuse of process.
Civil procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Incorporation of specific damages – Whether amendment is abuse of process – Amendments that do not change the cause of action or surprise the opponent permissible – Authorities permitting substitution of damages for specific performance cited.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Court allowed plaintiff to amend the plaint to add specific damages, finding no abuse of process.
Civil procedure – Amendment of plaint; Abuse of process – Whether addition of specific damages alters cause of action or takes opposite party by surprise; Leave to amend – amendment allowed where it does not introduce new cause or unfairly prejudice opponent; Authority – allowance of change in relief from specific performance to damages.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Amendment to add specific damages is not an abuse of process and may be allowed where it does not change the cause of action.
Civil procedure – Amendment of plaint – Whether amendment to add specific damages is abuse of process – Does not change cause of action or cause surprise – Amendment permitted; analogy to amendments converting specific performance claim to damages (Indian authority).
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Typographical errors in pleadings do not bar appeals; respondent failed to prove land ownership on balance of probabilities.
Land law – proof of title and trespass – sufficiency of written instrument and witness evidence; preliminary objections – requirement to raise pure points of law; typographical errors in pleadings do not render appeals incompetent; appellate interference with findings of fact where trial evidence deficient.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
An application to set aside a garnishee order and stay execution was dismissed as hopelessly time-barred.
Execution – Garnishee order nisi – Part of execution process and not separable from stay of execution; Limitation – Applications under written law with no period provided must be filed within 60 days; Civil Procedure – Order 39 r.5 stay applications must be made within a reasonable time (appeal period); Competence – Wrong citation may affect competence but need not be determined where time bar disposes of the matter.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution relied on uncorroborated co-accused statements and insufficient evidence of electrical interference.
Criminal law – Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of co-accused – impermissible to convict solely on such evidence; Offences against utility services – interference with networks and fraudulent appropriation of electricity – prosecution must prove elements beyond speculative inferences; Evidence – mere mention by co-accused and receipt of money insufficient to establish commission of the charged offences.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
The appellant’s convictions, based on uncorroborated co‑accused statements and scant evidence, were quashed.
Criminal law – Evidence – Conviction based on uncorroborated statement of co‑accused – sufficiency of proof in electricity interference and fraudulent appropriation offences; necessity of corroboration and/or expert evidence in technical offences.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Conviction based solely on uncorroborated co-accused statements and payments insufficient to prove interference with electricity or fraud.
Criminal law – conviction based on uncorroborated statements of a co-accused – requirement of corroboration for safe conviction Criminal law – interference with utility infrastructure and fraudulent appropriation of power – sufficiency of evidence Evidence – weight of payments, accusations and hearsay in proving criminal liability
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Whether the applicant was entitled to repatriation or unpleaded salary claims where recruitment was in Mwanza.
Labour law – Repatriation – entitlement under section 43(1)(a) ELRA – depends on place of recruitment; place of engagement must be proved. Procedural law – Pleadings — claims not pleaded in CMA F1 cannot be decided if raised first during testimony as employer lacks fair opportunity to defend. Evidence – Employment aboard vessel: choice of abode at ports does not establish place of recruitment or entitlement to repatriation. Revision – High Court will not interfere where Arbitrator's findings are rational and supported by record.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Retrenchment without prior notice or proper consultation unlawful; 12 months' compensation plus terminal benefits awarded.
Labour law – retrenchment – statutory requirements of notice and consultation under s.38(1) ELRA; arbitrator’s duty to note procedural irregularities; remedies for unlawful termination — reinstatement, re‑engagement impracticable, compensation of 12 months’ salary ordered in addition to terminal benefits.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Bank’s control of a receivership sale and concealment of newer valuation amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation; plaintiff awarded refund and damages.
Company law/receivership – status and agency of receivers appointed under a debenture – where appointing creditor assumes control receiver may become creditor’s agent. Contract/conditional sale – integration of sale agreement and related credit facility as single transaction. Misrepresentation – concealment and active misleading conduct (showing older valuation, concealing newer one, discouraging fresh valuation and imposing pressure) can amount to fraudulent misrepresentation. Remedies – restitution, interest and general damages for loss caused by inducement to overpay.
|
3 December 2013 |
|
The bank fraudulently misrepresented valuation inducing the plaintiff to overpay; receivers acted as the bank's agents.
Agency of receivers — when bank’s intervention converts receivers into bank’s agents; sale and credit facility interdependence; fraudulent misrepresentation by concealing valuation and pressuring buyer; remedies: refund, general damages and interest.
|
3 December 2013 |
|
Applicant’s revision dismissed: illness pleaded as good cause required documentary proof; rejoinder expunged for unauthorized extension.
Labour law – condonation – good cause – sickness must be proved by documentary/medical evidence; Procedural fairness – evidence not placed before arbitrator cannot be relied on in revision; Court procedure – limits on Deputy Registrar’s power to grant extensions; Case management – consequences of delays and non-compliance with orders.
|
3 December 2013 |
|
The court struck out the applicant’s labour complaint as time-barred and improperly filed for failure to follow transitional procedures.
Labour law – Procedural compliance and transitional provisions under the Employment and Labour Relations Act – Proper institution of labour complaints; Limitation – Whether claim time-barred and requirement to seek extension of time; Res sub judice – pendency before higher court (not decided after other objections sustained).
|
3 December 2013 |
|
A review filed beyond 15 days without leave and failing to comply with Labour Court Rules was held incompetent and struck out.
Labour Court Rules – review procedure – Rule 27 (time‑limit and content) – review filed after 15 days without leave is incompetent; improper citation of Limitation Act where Labour Rules govern; Rule 55 allows other laws only if lacuna exists; preliminary objection sustained and matter struck out.
|
3 December 2013 |
|
Proceedings and award quashed where condonation was not recorded and required notice for combined mediation-arbitration was not given.
Labour law — CMA jurisdiction — condonation for time-barred disputes; Procedural requirements for combined mediation-arbitration — 14 days written notice; Failure to record condonation hearing and lack of combining notice are material irregularities — proceedings and award quashed; Remittal for rehearing before a different mediator/arbitrator.
|
3 December 2013 |
|
The applicant lacked locus standi to sue over family/deceased's land; proceedings were null and appeal dismissed.
Locus standi – capacity to sue over family or deceased’s estate land – necessity of permission under s.18(2) Land Disputes Courts Act or proof of estate administration; nullity ab initio of proceedings brought without locus standi; effect on subsequent appeals; court may consider locus standi at any stage.
|
3 December 2013 |
|
An appeal is not subjudice where parties overlap but the applicant's and respondent's suits involve different subject matters.
Civil procedure – Subjudice – tests: same parties, same subject matter, competent jurisdiction, pending for hearing of merits. Land law – distinction between damages claim and ownership dispute – different subject matters negate subjudice. Preliminary objection – burden to show overlap of subject matter and filing particulars.
|
3 December 2013 |
|
A party cannot repudiate a CMA mediated settlement (F5) and seek revision without timely arbitration or revision.
Labour law – CMA mediated settlement (Form F5) – enforcement/execution of mediated awards – remedy of arbitration under s.87(7) ELRA – revision of mediated awards – mediator remains seized (s.86(8)) – procedural compliance required before seeking court revision.
|
2 December 2013 |
|
Applicants' non‑compliance with court-ordered consolidation and condonation justified dismissal of their CMA claim and revision application.
Labour law – procedural compliance – consolidation of disputes and condonation – failure to comply with court directions warranted dismissal of CMA claim; review of CMA ruling on procedural grounds.
|
2 December 2013 |