|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2013 |
|
|
|
31 March 2013 |
|
Failure to prove travel abroad or produce documentary evidence justified refusal to extend time to appeal.
Civil procedure — extension of time to file leave to appeal — applicant must show cogent grounds and discharge burden of proof (s.110 Evidence Act); affidavits unsupported by documentary evidence (eg. travel tickets, delivery proof) are insufficient; modern communication weighs against accepting unexplained non-receipt excuses.
|
28 March 2013 |
|
Interim orders to preserve disputed mining equipment refused for lack of particulars and to avoid obstructing Labour Division execution.
Civil procedure – interlocutory relief – attachment before judgment (Order 36 r.6) and detention/preservation (Order 37 r.8) – requirements for granting such orders – necessity of particularized evidence of intent to obstruct execution – interim orders must ordinarily be directed at parties, not third parties – court may not grant relief that improperly obstructs execution proceedings in another Division.
|
28 March 2013 |
|
Appeal dismissed as time-barred where certified court documents remained uncollected for over five years.
Limitation — appeals — Law of Limitation Act Cap.89 s.19(2) — period requisite for obtaining copies — certified copies ready for collection but not collected — unexplained multi-year delay not excluded — appeal time-barred.
|
28 March 2013 |
|
An appellant’s failure to collect certified court records when ready renders the appeal time‑barred.
Civil procedure – Limitation of actions – Section 19(2) Law of Limitation Act – exclusion of the period "requisite for obtaining" copies of decree – when delay in collecting certified records is not excused. Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – time‑bar – duty of litigant to follow up and obtain certified records – dismissal of appeal for being time‑barred.
|
28 March 2013 |
|
Whether the appeal is time-barred for failing to file within the statutory period and without seeking extension of time.
Limitation of actions – appeal time-limits – effect of delay in collecting certified copies of judgment and decree; requirement to apply for extension of time where filing exceeds statutory period; preliminary objection as mechanism to strike out time-barred or otherwise incompetent appeals.
|
28 March 2013 |
|
Execution granted and eviction ordered where ex parte judgment stood and judgment debtors were properly served.
Civil procedure – Execution of decree – Granting eviction where ex parte decree stands and prior setting-aside application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Service of process – Adequacy of service evidenced by process server's affidavit as basis for proceeding with execution. Order XVII Rule 5 CPC – Effect of dismissal for want of prosecution on subsequent enforcement of decree.
|
27 March 2013 |
|
High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a stay application after a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal is filed.
Civil procedure – stay of execution – jurisdiction after lodging Notice of Appeal – High Court’s inherent jurisdiction limited where Code/Rules provide – Order XXXIX Rule 5(1) CPC; Rule 11(2)(b) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Notice of Appeal deemed commencement of appeal.
|
27 March 2013 |
|
Judgment debtors failed to show cause; court granted eviction to enforce a final High Court decree.
Civil procedure – Execution of decree – Order XXI Rules 9 and 11 – Eviction order to enforce High Court decree. Finality of judgment – dismissed leave to appeal does not amount to an appeal and does not bar execution. Requirement to show cause – judgment debtors failed to show cause to resist execution.
|
27 March 2013 |
|
Decree holder’s eviction order granted because judgment debtors failed to show cause and no appeal was pending.
Execution and eviction — enforcement of High Court decree declaring ownership — whether objections or dismissed leave applications bar execution — discretion to grant execution where no appeal pending.
|
27 March 2013 |
|
Malicious prosecution claim dismissed as time‑barred; asserted sickness not pleaded or proven to exclude limitation.
Limitation law – tort of malicious prosecution – three‑year limitation period under Part II para 6 of the Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act. Limitation law – computation and commencement – cause of action accrues from date of judgment acquitting accused. Law of Limitation Act s.16 – exclusion for disability – claimant must plead and prove disability with evidence. Civil procedure – preliminary objection – merits of time bar can dispose of suit without trial.
|
26 March 2013 |
|
A malicious prosecution claim filed after the three‑year limitation is time‑barred; unproven illness does not exclude time.
Limitation of actions – tort of malicious prosecution – three‑year limitation under para 6 Part I of Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act – section 16 (disability) excluded where not pleaded or proved – preliminary objection on point of law – dismissal for being time‑barred.
|
26 March 2013 |
|
High Court allowed revision, permitted representative for an allegedly mentally ill applicant, and transferred the trial to another magistrate.
Revision under Magistrates' Courts Act s.44(1)(b); failure to file Written Statement of Defence (Order VIII); representation of persons of unsound mind (Order XXXI CPC); transfer to another trial magistrate in interest of justice.
|
26 March 2013 |
|
High Court permits representation for mentally ill applicant, remits case for fresh hearing before another magistrate.
Revision under s.44(1)(b) Magistrates' Courts Act; ex parte proceedings and right to be heard; failure to file Written Statement of Defence; mental illness/unsound mind — representation under Order XXXI CPC; remittal to another magistrate in interest of justice.
|
26 March 2013 |
|
A sick, non-violent first offender with a reasonable appeal may obtain bail pending appeal subject to stringent security.
Bail pending appeal; reasonable cause; convict's ill-health and inadequate prison care; non-violent offences and first offender status; appeal not frivolous/reasonable prospect of success; stringent security conditions (TZS 10,000,000 bond and property security).
|
25 March 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution evidence was contradictory and material witnesses were not called.
Criminal law – burden of proof – prosecution must prove offence beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions going to root create reasonable doubt. Criminal procedure – duty to call material witnesses – failure to call reachable witnesses (village chairman, neighbours, police) permits adverse inference against prosecution. Evidence – corroboration required where family or close-connection context raises risk of partiality.
|
25 March 2013 |
|
Challenges to admissibility and medical absence of spermatozoa rejected; totality of evidence proved rape and sentence affirmed.
Criminal law – Rape – Admissibility of evidence – Hearsay vs direct observation; Child witness – competency and voir dire under s.127 Evidence Act; Medical evidence (PF3) – absence of spermatozoa not fatal; Appellate review – credibility assessments rest with trial court; Conviction and sentence affirmed under s.131 Penal Code.
|
24 March 2013 |
|
Conviction void where offence triable only by High Court and no DPP certificate authorised subordinate court.
Jurisdiction — Economic offences triable by High Court — Requirement of DPP certificate under section 12(3) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act — Charge framing under Wildlife Conservation Act read with Economic and Organized Crime Control Act — Proceedings and judgment null where subordinate court lacks jurisdiction.
|
22 March 2013 |
|
Duplicated prosecutions, inadequate identification and a warrantless search rendered convictions unsafe and were quashed.
Criminal law – Identification of stolen goods – Complainant’s bare allegation and generalized description insufficient to prove ownership or identification of common shop articles. Criminal procedure – Search and seizure – Warrantless, suo motu search by complainants and villagers invalid; proper police procedure and search warrant required. Criminal procedure – Abuse of process/duplication of prosecutions – Charging and convicting accused in two separate files for the same transaction is irregular and untenable. Standard of proof – Conviction unsafe where identification and procedural defects leave reasonable doubt.
|
22 March 2013 |
|
Court quashed conviction and ordered applicant's release due to missing trial record and lengthy imprisonment.
Criminal procedure – Missing original trial record – Usual remedy retrial – Court may instead grant relief by revision where retrial would be unjust given lengthy time already served – Delay in appealing due to inability to obtain judgment copy.
|
22 March 2013 |
|
The applicant may recover money mistakenly credited to the respondents' account where respondents acted in bad faith.
Banking law – payment by mistake of fact – recovery of money paid by mistake; duty of customer to notify bank of unexpected/forged credits; unjust enrichment and restitution; good faith defence and evidential burden (SWIFT/transfer proof).
|
21 March 2013 |
|
Ward Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over high-value industrial land; lower tribunals' proceedings and orders were nullified.
Land law – Jurisdiction of Ward Tribunals – Pecuniary limits and statutory/geographical competence – Ward Tribunals not competent to determine high-value industrial land disputes in cities/municipalities – Proceedings and orders of tribunals without jurisdiction are nullities.
|
19 March 2013 |
|
Ward tribunal lacked jurisdiction over high-value municipal land; both tribunal decisions were nullified.
Land law – Ward Tribunal jurisdiction – pecuniary limit (TSh 3,000,000) and geographical/statutory competence – Ward Tribunals in municipalities/cities – nullity of proceedings where tribunal lacks jurisdiction – execution pending jurisdictional determination – issues of adverse possession and unexhausted improvements.
|
19 March 2013 |
|
|
19 March 2013 |
|
Plaintiff’s plaint discloses a cause of action; 3rd defendant’s preliminary objection overruled pending substantive determination of spousal consent.
Civil procedure — preliminary objection — whether plaint discloses a cause of action — application of Auto Garage v Motokov test. Mortgage law — validity of mortgage over matrimonial property — alleged lack of spousal consent and fraud. Family law — spousal consent in polygamous marriage — issue of consent not to be decided on preliminary objection.
|
19 March 2013 |
|
Court orders 10% cash security for costs from non-resident respondent lacking immovable Tanzanian property.
Civil procedure – Order XXV R.1 CPC – Security for costs – Non-resident plaintiff lacking immovable property – Discretionary remedy in exceptional circumstances; quantum of security; cash as acceptable security.
|
19 March 2013 |
|
Wrong or obsolete citation of statutory provisions renders an application incompetent and justifies striking it out.
Judicial review — prerogative orders — competence of application — fatality of wrong or obsolete citation of enabling statutory provisions (Ordinance v Act; incorrect Cap. references) — court may strike out application for non-existent/incorrect legal citation.
|
19 March 2013 |
|
Credible victim and eyewitness testimony can sustain a rape conviction despite a PF3 irregularity, which was expunged.
Criminal law – Rape: victim and eyewitness testimony – credibility and sufficiency to convict; PF3 (medical report) admitted in breach of s.240(3) Crim. Proc. Act – PF3 expunged; prosecution not obliged to call witnesses nominated by accused; sentencing followed conviction; defence considered and rejected.
|
15 March 2013 |
|
An improperly admitted cautioned statement and unsafe night-time identification led to quashing of the applicant's convictions.
Criminal procedure – cautioned statement – admissibility – prosecution must prove confession was voluntary and accused given opportunity to comment before admission. Evidence – visual identification – caution required where identification at night; inconsistencies and lack of detail render identification unsafe. Evidence – failure to call available eyewitnesses undermines prosecution case. Appeal – convictions quashed where confession improperly admitted and identification evidence unreliable, creating reasonable doubt.
|
15 March 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed where cautioned statement was improperly admitted and nighttime visual identification was unsafe.
Criminal law – Admissibility of cautioned/confessional statements – Prosecution's burden to prove voluntariness; Visual identification – caution in night identifications; Failure to call material eyewitnesses – effect on safety of conviction.
|
15 March 2013 |
|
PF3 irregularity expunged, but credible victim and witness testimony sustained the rape conviction; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Rape – Sufficiency of victim’s evidence supported by independent witness; PF3 admitted without complying with s240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – PF3 expunged; conviction may stand on credible testimony; prosecution not obliged to call defence‑preferred witnesses.
|
15 March 2013 |
|
Application to rectify company register struck out as time-barred; fraud-discovery exception inapplicable on the facts.
Companies law – rectification of register – alleged unauthorized share allotment and filing; Limitation law – Item 21 Part III (60 days) – accrual when applicant knew or ought to have known; Fraud-discovery exception (Secs.6(i),26) – requires actual discovery; Procedural remedy – striking out time-barred application (costs ordered).
|
15 March 2013 |
|
Court held Plot No.1A existed, is the same as Plot No.2B, and dismissed appeals for lack of merit.
Land law – disputed plot identity – whether Plot No.1A and Plot No.2 Block B are the same – documentary evidence (receipts, Letter of Offer) and committee proceedings supporting alteration of plot number – Tribunal’s finding not speculative.
|
15 March 2013 |
|
Applicant failed to show new evidence or error for review; proceedings nullified for lack of an admitted plaint.
Civil procedure – Review under Order XLII Rule 1 – requirement of new and important evidence or error apparent on face of record. Civil procedure – Nullity of proceedings where plaint was never admitted and signed – proceedings null ab initio. Civil procedure – Distinction between grounds of review and grounds of appeal. Procedural – Correction of slip of the pen in judgment (clerical error).
|
14 March 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed where exhibits and caution statements were inadmissible, and evidence and corroboration were insufficient.
Criminal procedure – preliminary hearing – s192(3) CPA – memorandum of agreed matters per accused; Evidence – admissibility of exhibits – prosecutor not competent to tender – s127 Evidence Act; Admissibility – caution statements – non-compliance with s50(1)(a)(b) CPA – expunged; Identification – insufficient; Corroboration – confessions of co-accused require corroboration; Absconding on bail not proof of guilt.
|
13 March 2013 |
|
Acquittal by reasonable doubt does not alone prove malicious prosecution; plaintiff must prove lack of probable cause and malice.
Malicious prosecution — elements required: prosecution by defendant, termination in plaintiff's favour, absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice; acquittal for lack of proof is not proof of innocence; burden of proof in civil malicious prosecution lies on plaintiff; public interest in not chilling crime reporting.
|
12 March 2013 |
|
Court upheld equal division of matrimonial assets despite applicant’s greater financial contribution.
Family law – Division of matrimonial property – Application of section 114 Law of Marriage Act – Financial and non-financial contributions. Property law – Title registration is a rebuttable presumption in matrimonial disputes. Civil procedure – Court may adjudicate division of matrimonial assets where parties live separately despite no formal divorce decree. Evidentiary issues – Treatment of proceeds from sale of matrimonial assets (Tegeta house and lorry).
|
12 March 2013 |
|
Registrar lacked jurisdiction to determine bail; DPP's National Security Act certificate bars police but not the court.
Criminal procedure – jurisdiction of Registrar – Registrar lacks jurisdiction to determine bail in matters triable by High Court – proceedings nullity. Bail – effect of DPP certificate under National Security Act s.19(1)-(2) – prohibits police admitting to bail but does not automatically bar court from granting bail. Separation of powers – executive certificate cannot oust judicial discretion without court inquiry. Procedure – argumentative affidavit not incurably defective; substantive justice prevails.
|
11 March 2013 |
|
Conviction under section 89(2) quashed for failure to prove intent and the actual words constituting a threat.
Criminal law – Threatening violence – Section 89(2) Penal Code – requirement of intent to intimidate or annoy – necessity to prove actual words where threat by words – insufficiency of evidence – conviction not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
11 March 2013 |
|
Conviction for threatening violence quashed where prosecution failed to prove intent or the exact threatening words.
Criminal law – Threatening violence – Section 89(2) Penal Code – requirement to prove intention to intimidate or annoy; Evidentiary requirement where threat alleged to be by words – prosecution must prove actual words spoken; Defective charge/absence of proof of mens rea renders conviction unsafe.
|
11 March 2013 |
|
A suit dismissed under O.XXV r.2(1) must be revived by an application under r.2(2), not by filing a fresh suit.
Civil Procedure Code – Order XXV r.2(1) dismissal for failure to furnish security for costs – Remedy is application under r.2(2) to set aside dismissal and seek extension, not instituting a fresh suit; preliminary objection; striking out; costs.
|
11 March 2013 |
|
A fresh suit filed after dismissal under O.XXV r.2(1) is improper; the plaintiff must apply to set aside the dismissal.
Civil Procedure – Order XXV r.2(1) – dismissal for failure to furnish security for costs – correct remedy is application under Order XXV r.2(2) to set aside dismissal and seek extension of time. Filing a fresh suit after dismissal under O.XXV r.2(1) is improper. Preliminary objection may dispose of matter without addressing other objections (e.g., time bar).
|
11 March 2013 |
|
Plaintiff’s pleaded tenancy, subletting and termination sufficiently disclose a cause of action; preliminary objection overruled.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Whether plaint discloses a cause of action – Tenancy and subletting – Termination of tenancy – Application of Puto Garage v Motokov test.
|
11 March 2013 |
|
A voluntary cautioned confession was admissible, but a co-accused cannot be convicted solely on another’s repudiated confession without corroboration.
Criminal law – Murder – Evidence – Admissibility of cautioned statement – voluntariness tested by trial-within-trial. Evidence – Repudiated/confession of an accused implicating co-accused – requires independent corroboration; cannot alone ground conviction (s.33 Evidence Act). Criminal procedure – Chargesheet sufficiency – omission of "jointly and together" not fatal; common intention requirements reiterated.
|
11 March 2013 |
|
An appellate tribunal improperly raised unpleaded issues and wrongly quashed the Ward Tribunal; the Ward decision was restored.
Land law – Ward Tribunal procedure; duty to call witnesses lies with parties not tribunal; Evidence Act s.143 – no prescribed number of witnesses; appellate review – appellate tribunal cannot raise or decide unpleaded issues; quashing of appellate decision and restoration of Ward Tribunal decision; pleadings limit issues for trial and appeal.
|
11 March 2013 |
|
Adjournment requires sufficient cause beyond party's control; counsel must prepare witnesses and seniority is no excuse.
Adjournment — sufficient cause and circumstances beyond control — Order 17 r.1 & r.3 CPC; High Court (Commercial Division) Procedure Rules r.46(2)(b) — duty of counsel to prepare witnesses — seniority or engagement elsewhere not ordinarily sufficient — case management and firm control over proceedings.
|
8 March 2013 |
|
A reply to a counter-claim filed after the statutory 21-day period without leave must be struck out.
Civil Procedure – time limits for pleadings – O. VIII r.11(1) Civil Procedure Code – reply to counter-claim must be filed within 21 days of service. Procedural law – mandatory statutory time limits – court cannot admit late filings made without leave. Preliminary objections – unargued points in submissions are treated as abandoned.
|
8 March 2013 |
|
Applicant had leave and therefore locus to challenge decision; Attorney General was improperly joined and struck out.
Government proceedings – locus standi – section 10 Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 5 R.E. 2002) – leave to apply for prerogative orders confers standing. Joinder of parties – Attorney General improperly joined where not party to underlying proceedings – name struck out.
|
8 March 2013 |
|
Appeal allowed: prosecutions failed to prove knowledge, SIM ownership and authenticity of SMS; convictions quashed.
Criminal law – written threats by SMS – knowledge of contents as essential element – burden on prosecution to prove. Criminal procedure – defective charge – wrong statutory provision (section 241) renders counts defective. Evidence – ownership/possession of SIM card – requirement for positive proof or forensic linkage. Evidence – authentication of electronic/printed SMS – contradictions undermine admissibility. Trial process – duty to evaluate prosecution and defence evidence as a whole.
|
8 March 2013 |
|
Relative eyewitness identification corroborated by post‑mortem sufficed to convict despite an unsupported alibi; death sentence imposed.
Criminal law – murder – eyewitness identification by relatives at close range and in daylight; weight of uncorroborated but credible direct evidence; corroboration by post-mortem and scene exhibits; alibi notice under s.194(4) Criminal Procedure Act; inference of malice aforethought from persistent, targeted attack with a lethal weapon; delay in prosecution not automatically fatal to prosecution case.
|
8 March 2013 |