|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2013 |
|
|
Plaintiff failed to prove malice or lack of reasonable and probable cause; malicious-prosecution claim dismissed.
Malicious prosecution – elements: prosecution, termination in favour, lack of reasonable and probable cause, malice – burden on plaintiff to prove malice and absence of probable cause. Acquittal is not prima facie proof of lack of reasonable and probable cause. Evidence of possession of bribe and matching note numbers may establish reasonable cause to prosecute.
|
30 September 2013 |
|
Whether the plaintiff's High Court suit is barred as sub judice under section 8 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Civil procedure – Subjudice rule (s.8 Civil Procedure Code) – Stay of proceedings where same subject matter and same plaintiff pending before another tribunal; preliminary objections on locus standi and jurisdiction not determined.
|
30 September 2013 |
|
Court stayed suit as subjudice under section 8 pending determination of a prior tribunal land application.
Civil Procedure — subjudice rule (s.8 Civil Procedure Code) — identical subject matter and same plaintiff — differing defendant names do not avoid subjudice — stay of proceedings to avoid conflicting judgments.
|
30 September 2013 |
|
Revision permitted against a post-judgment stay of execution; s.79(2) covers decided applications, not only suits.
Interlocutory orders — stay of execution — revisional jurisdiction — interpretation of s.79(2) Civil Procedure Code and s.43(2) Magistrates' Courts Act — 'any case' includes decided applications — revision competent where order made post-judgment.
|
30 September 2013 |
|
|
29 September 2013 |
|
Revision application premature for lack of CMA condonation; matter remitted to CMA for mediation and possible arbitration.
Labour law – time limits for referral to CMA under GN No.64/2007 Rule 10 – requirement to seek condonation at CMA before filing revision – premature revision applications – remit to mediation/arbitration.
|
27 September 2013 |
|
Court found dismissal unfair, ordered 12 months' compensation and back pay; suspended USD1,250 award.
Labour law – unfair dismissal – substantive fairness (breach of trust vs. unauthorised private work) – procedural fairness (right to hearing) – mediator’s certificate as framing issues – remedies under section 40(3) ELRA (12 months compensation + back pay).
|
27 September 2013 |
|
Appellant failed to prove forgery of the agreement and cannot raise bias for the first time on appeal; appeal dismissed.
Civil procedure – appeal – appellate review of factual findings – failure by appellant to identify contradictions in witness testimony; appellate court will not overturn credibility findings without shown inconsistencies. Evidence – documentary evidence – authenticity – burden to prove forgery rests on the party alleging it; evidence of witnesses who witnessed and recorded an agreement can establish authenticity. Procedural law – bias/recusal – allegations of judicial bias must be raised at trial; issues not raised at trial cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time on appeal.
|
27 September 2013 |
|
Termination was substantively and procedurally unfair; compensation reduced to twelve months plus back pay and benefits.
Labour law – unfair dismissal – substantive and procedural fairness; employer’s burden to prove misconduct; right to be furnished with disciplinary evidence and to cross‑examine investigators; mediation/arbitration procedure; compensation for unfair dismissal – statutory minimum versus excessive award.
|
26 September 2013 |
|
Redundancy amounted to constructive dismissal without consultation; employer ordered to pay twelve months' compensation.
Employment law – redundancy and operational requirements – constructive dismissal where employer’s conduct renders employment intolerable; statutory consultation and disclosure obligations under ELRA s38; remedy of compensation under ELRA s40(1)(c).
|
26 September 2013 |
|
Court dismissed time‑bar and procedural preliminary objections; revision permitted to proceed.
Labour procedure — time bars and extension of time — withdrawal and refiling; procedural defects in affidavits and endorsements — court record prevailing over defective served copies; competency of preliminary objections; discretion to extend time.
|
25 September 2013 |
|
Legal issues may appear in Labour Court affidavits, but incorrect statutory citation renders the application incompetent.
Labour procedure – Affidavits – Rule 24(3)(c) permits statements of legal issues in supporting affidavits; incorrect or non-specific citation of enabling statutory provisions renders an application incompetent and liable to be struck out; registry practice on document copies admonished.
|
25 September 2013 |
|
A prior ruling that the High Court has jurisdiction precludes a later jurisdictional objection; suit proceeds to trial.
Jurisdiction — preliminary objection — interlocutory ruling — functus officio — Group Life Insurance under trust deed — employment/trade dispute jurisdiction.
|
25 September 2013 |
|
Mediator improperly acted as arbitrator without proper notice or valid consent; CMA arbitration nullified and reheard before a different arbitrator.
Labour law – Mediation and arbitration – Mediator cannot act as arbitrator without certified non‑settlement or proper notice/consent; procedural irregularity vitiates CMA arbitration award.
|
25 September 2013 |
|
Acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution; plaintiff must prove lack of probable cause, malice, and damage.
Tort — Malicious prosecution — Elements required: prosecution by defendant, termination in favour, lack of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and damage. Criminal acquittal — Acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution in civil suit. Evidence — Burden on plaintiff to prove all ingredients and compensable damages. Appellate review — Trial court’s factual evaluation and credibility findings not lightly disturbed.
|
24 September 2013 |
|
An acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution; plaintiff must prove malice, lack of probable cause, and damages.
Malicious prosecution — elements required: prosecution by defendant, termination in favour of plaintiff, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and malice; acquittal alone insufficient to establish malicious prosecution; plaintiff must prove damages on balance of probabilities.
|
24 September 2013 |
|
Extension of time refused where sufficient cause not shown and related appeals remained pending, rendering court intervention inappropriate.
Labour procedure – Extension of time – Discretionary power under Section 56 Labour Court Rules – requirement to show sufficient cause. Delay – Importance of explaining delay; a legal point alone does not excuse late application. Jurisdiction – Pending appeals to Public Service Commission and President precluding Labour Court intervention; CMA’s lack of jurisdiction.
|
24 September 2013 |
|
Enforcement of a Labour Commissioner’s compliance order lies in the Labour Court, not CMA; CMA award quashed.
Labour law – Compliance order enforcement – Labour Institutions Act s46(6) – Jurisdiction of Labour Court v CMA; Time limits for filing complaints; Quashing of CMA award for lack of jurisdiction.
|
24 September 2013 |
|
CMA lacked jurisdiction to enforce a Labour Commissioner’s compliance order; Labour Commissioner must apply to Labour Court.
Labour law – Enforcement of compliance orders – Labour Commissioner must apply to the Labour Court under s.46(6) of the Labour Institutions Act – CMA lacks jurisdiction to enforce compliance orders. Procedural law – Time limits – employee’s complaint within 60 days not time-barred. Civil procedure – Revision powers – Rule 28(1)(c) of Labour Court Rules to quash CMA proceedings and award.
|
24 September 2013 |
|
Suit struck out for want of pecuniary and commercial jurisdiction and for a plaint defective in stating subject value.
Commercial division jurisdiction — pecuniary jurisdiction depends on substantive claim pleaded in main body of plaint; Order VII r.1(f)&(i) — mandatory requirement to state facts showing jurisdiction and value of subject matter; tort versus commercial dispute — trespass not a commercial case under Rule 3; defective plaint — omission of subject value renders plaint incurably defective; remedy — striking out for want of jurisdiction (no transfer).
|
23 September 2013 |
|
Appellate court accepted Village Land Council inspection and appellant’s evidence as outweighing the Ward Tribunal’s finding for respondent.
Land law – boundary/possession dispute – weight of evidence from Village Land Council on-site inspection – appellate review of Ward Tribunal factual findings.
|
20 September 2013 |
|
Whether the prosecution made out sufficient, admissible evidence to require the accused to answer a murder charge.
Criminal law – Murder charge – No‑case to answer application under s.293(1) – sufficiency of evidence; admissibility and reliability of extra‑judicial statement; hearsay and circumstantial links; identification and investigative omissions (no identification parade).
|
20 September 2013 |
|
Appellants failed to prove the alleged debt; improperly tendered documents and lack of deceased’s acknowledgment defeated the claim.
Civil procedure – admissibility of annexures to plaint; Order VII Rule 14(1)&(2) – requirement to file/list documents with plaint; Evidence – burden of proof on balance of probabilities; Contract law – oral agreements in village context require witnesses/VEO under proviso to section 10 Law of Contract Act; Succession procedure – necessity to register claims against deceased’s estate.
|
20 September 2013 |
|
Failure to cite the enabling provision for urgent jurisdiction renders an application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Practice and procedure — certificate of urgency — failure to cite enabling provision — competence of proceedings; non-citation renders application incompetent — remedy: striking out application; reliance on precedent.
|
18 September 2013 |
|
Full Bench wrongly determined employment contract suo motu; unfair dismissal warranted reinstatement or statutory compensation, debt deductible.
Employment law – unfair dismissal – employee suffering mental illness – requirement to afford opportunity to be heard; Industrial Court jurisdiction – s.58(3) Employment Act – contract determined only on application by a party; Remedy – reinstatement as primary remedy, statutory compensation under s.40(3) where reinstatement impracticable; Deduction of employee debt from dues.
|
17 September 2013 |
|
Inconsistent citations/prayers in notice and chamber summons are fatal and warrant striking out, but the refiled application was not time‑barred.
Labour procedure — preliminary objection — defective citation of enabling provisions and inconsistent prayers in notice and chamber summons — application struck out; Time limits — leave to refile within two weeks — excluded days under Interpretation Act s.60(1)(b),(2) — filing on 6/8/2013 held within time; Rule 55(2) Labour Court Rules — court’s power to permit refiling.
|
16 September 2013 |
|
A prisoner’s dependence on prison authorities to file appeal records justified an extension of time to lodge a Notice of Appeal.
Criminal procedure – Extension of time – When delay attributable to prison authorities may constitute sufficient cause under section 363 Criminal Procedure Act. Appeals – Constitutional right to appeal – courts may grant extension where prisoner dependent on prison officers to file records. Evidence – Afterthought: factual assertions not sworn in affidavit are liable to be rejected.
|
16 September 2013 |
|
Court waived filing fees so an indigent applicant may seek extension of time to file for leave to appeal.
Access to justice – waiver of court filing fees – indigent litigant – exception to rules on fees – application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal.
|
16 September 2013 |
|
Conviction cannot rest on uncorroborated circumstantial evidence; prosecution failed to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – conviction requires inculpatory facts proved beyond reasonable doubt and incompatible with innocence. Evidence – witness credibility and conduct – failure to corroborate key assertions weakens circumstantial case. Forensic evidence – ambiguity in cause/mode of death (suffocation vs strangulation) undermines causal link. Flight – absence from scene not automatically proof of guilt.
|
16 September 2013 |
|
Non-joinder of transferee and seller rendered the tribunal’s judgment null, prompting quashing and retrial.
Land law – non-joinder of necessary parties (transferee and seller) – right to be heard – judgment and decree void for non-joinder – remittal for retrial.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Appellant's delayed appeal dismissed as time‑barred under the Limitation Act; preliminary objection sustained.
Appeal — Limitation — Time bar — appeal against District Court judgment filed after prescribed 45 days; Law of Limitation Act s.3(1) — proceedings filed out of time to be dismissed; Preliminary objection — determination on written submissions where appellants' counsel defaulted; Misjoinder not reached as time bar dispositive.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Whether the respondent instituted criminal proceedings without reasonable and probable cause, constituting malicious prosecution.
Civil wrongs — Malicious prosecution — Elements: prosecution, termination in favour, malice, lack of reasonable and probable cause, and damage — application of Jeremiah Kamama test. Evidence — Trial judgment must analyse evidence; 'reasonable suspicion' does not substitute for reasonable and probable cause. Damages — Award for losses must be supported or reasonably assessed where claims are unitemized. Procedure — Appellate re-evaluation of evidence on the balance of probabilities where trial judgment is deficient.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Appellant successfully proved malicious prosecution where the respondent lacked reasonable and probable cause; damages and costs awarded.
Malicious prosecution – elements required: prosecution by defendant, termination in favour of plaintiff, malice, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and damage. Evidence – reasonable suspicion is not equivalent to reasonable and probable cause; judgments must analyse evidence. Damages – assessment on balance of probabilities and judicial reduction of unitemized claims.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
A prosecution instituted without reasonable and probable cause was malicious, warranting damages and allowing the appeal.
Criminal law and civil tort – Malicious prosecution – elements required (prosecution, termination favouring plaintiff, malice, absence of reasonable/probable cause, damages) – distinction between reasonable suspicion and reasonable/probable cause – appellate review where trial judgment lacks analysis of evidence.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Preliminary objections alleging lack of capacity and locus were dismissed as factual issues requiring determination on the merits.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections – point of law versus point of fact – factual disputes (alleged forged orders, conflicting judgments) not decided by preliminary objection; Capacity and locus – whether an interim manager can sue or be sued and has standing to represent the company depend on evidence of valid appointment; Pleadings – misdescription of party (name versus office) curable by amendment under Rule 24.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Court allowed inquiry into injunctive relief to protect a deceased's estate, rejecting objections on citation and locus standi.
Civil procedure – interim relief in absence of pending suit – Court’s inherent powers under ss.68(c) and 95 to grant injunctions to prevent defeat of justice; procedural mis‑citation not fatal where form and enabling provisions complied with; locus standi of heir to protect deceased's estate.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Court allows injunctions under inherent powers and ss.68/95; applicant heir has locus standi; preliminary objection dismissed.
Civil procedure — temporary injunctions — requirement of pending suit under Order XXXVII r.1 — inherent powers and ss.68(c) & 95 to grant relief in urgent cases — chamber summons procedure under O.XLIII r.2 — incorrect citation of law not necessarily fatal — locus standi of heir to protect estate assets.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
An heir may seek urgent injunctive relief to protect a deceased’s estate; wrong citation is not fatal to competence.
Civil procedure – Temporary injunctions over deceased’s estate – Whether injunctive relief requires a pending suit under O.XXXVII r.1 – Court’s inherent powers and ss.68 & 95 of the Civil Procedure Code permit urgent relief to prevent defeat of justice – Incorrect statutory citation not necessarily fatal – Locus standi of heir to protect estate and seek surrender of documents.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
The court quashed the administration appointment for lack of jurisdiction and nondisclosure of pending appeals by the respondent.
Civil procedure — Review under Order XLII r.1(1)(b) — "person considering himself aggrieved" — locus to apply for review; Civil procedure — Oral/preservatory applications — proviso to Order XLIII r.2 and section 95 CPC; Appellate procedure — effect of notice of appeal/pending revision in Court of Appeal on High Court jurisdiction; Companies law — mis-citation of statutory provision — error apparent on face of record; Procedural fairness — service and nondisclosure/fraud in obtaining orders.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed: child evidence, improperly admitted PF3 and lack of identification undermined prosecution case.
Evidence Act s.127(2),(5) – voir dire required for child witnesses; Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) – right to call medical officer and admissibility of PF3; Identification evidence – need for identification parade where witness did not know accused prior; Sufficiency of evidence – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
The applicant's conviction quashed for failure to conduct voir dire, misadmission of PF3, and lack of identification parade.
Evidence — Child witness — Section 127(2) Evidence Act — Mandatory voir dire to assess intelligence and duty to tell truth; unsworn child evidence without voir dire to be discounted. Criminal procedure — PF3 (medical report) — Section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act — PF3 must be tendered by or tested through the doctor who prepared it; accused entitled to have doctor summoned. Identification — Where witness did not know suspect before incident, an identification parade should be conducted to remove doubt. Conviction safety — Failure to observe statutory safeguards may render conviction unsafe and occasion quashing of conviction and sentence.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Respondent’s failure to attend conciliation and proved cruelty established irretrievable breakdown; respondent ordered to pay Tshs.3,300,000.
Family law – Law of Marriage Act s.101 – requirement of certificate from Marriage Conciliation Board; summons and willful non‑attendance satisfies exception. Family law – Divorce – s.107 – irretrievable breakdown established by physical cruelty, separation and partial division of matrimonial assets. Matrimonial property – division – contributions (including domestic work) and misconduct relevant; valuation and equitable redistribution. Relief – compensation for bodily injury is not appropriate as an omnibus matrimonial award without itemization.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed due to contradictory evidence and improper admission of PF3 and blood‑stained shirt.
Criminal law – Assault causing actual bodily harm – sufficiency and credibility of prosecution evidence – contradictions among witnesses and absence of corroboration. Evidence – Hearsay – PW3’s second‑hand information inadmissible as corroboration. Evidence in primary courts – Documentary evidence (PF3) must be connected by oral evidence from its author (GN No.22 of 1964, Rule 11(2)). Admission of physical exhibits – accused must be given opportunity to be heard before receiving exhibits (blood‑stained shirt) into evidence. Identification – positive visual identification at night must be satisfactorily established (reference to Waziri Amani principles).
|
13 September 2013 |
|
General/evasive denials in a written statement of defence amounted to constructive admissions, permitting judgment on admission.
Civil Procedure – Order VIII rr.3–5 – Specificity of denials; general/evasive denials deemed constructive admissions; s.60 Evidence Act – admissions need not be proved; Order XII r.4 – judgment on admissions; written statement of defence signed on behalf of multiple defendants binds them.
|
12 September 2013 |
|
General, non‑specific denials in a written statement constitute constructive admissions permitting judgment on admission.
Civil procedure — pleadings: Order VIII rr.3–5 — requirement for specific denials; constructive admissions where denials are general — Section 60 Evidence Act; judgment on admissions under Order XII r.4; corporate defendants’ pleading by officer.
|
12 September 2013 |
|
Court rejected procedural preliminary objections and allowed revision under s44(1)(b) to challenge the Resident Magistrate's computation and execution.
Revision — Magistrates Courts Act s44(1)(b) — proper remedy to challenge subordinate court’s interpretation/assessment of a ministerial award. Affidavit formalities — Order XIX r3(1) — substantial compliance sufficient; disputes over source/knowledge are evidential. Appeal vs revision — assessment/ computation orders by Resident Magistrate not appealable under Order XL r1. Preliminary objection — factual disputes not ordinarily resolvable at preliminary objection stage.
|
12 September 2013 |
|
The applicant’s revision under s.44(1)(b) was competent; preliminary objections dismissed and affidavit held substantially compliant.
Magistrates Courts Act s.44(1)(b) – Revision of Resident Magistrate’s assessment; Revision v. appeal – Order XL Rule 1; Affidavit verification – Order XIX Rule 3(1); Enforcement of Minister’s decision under Security of Employment Act.
|
12 September 2013 |
|
Preliminary objections to a revision under s.44(1)(b) failed; affidavit defects were substantively compliant and evidential.
Revision – s.44(1)(b) Magistrates Courts Act: proper remedy to challenge Resident Magistrate’s assessment; Affidavit requirements – Order XIX r.3(1) and substantial compliance; Preliminary objections – procedural defects raising evidential issues not to be disposed of at preliminary stage; Appeal versus revision – assessments for enforcement are not appealable under Order XL r.1.
|
12 September 2013 |