|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2014 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction upheld on credible eyewitness and sufficient circumstantial evidence; alibi inadequately particularised.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – identity – sufficiency of identification evidence and role of circumstantial evidence.
* Criminal procedure – Identification parade – investigatory not mandatory; absence does not vitiate reliable in-court identification.
* Criminal procedure – Alibi – duty to furnish particulars at preliminary hearing; failure permits court to discount alibi (s.42(2),(3), s.194(6) CPA).
* Evidence – Cautioned statement – irregularly admitted but not relied upon; conviction may stand on credible eyewitness and circumstantial evidence.
* Evidence – Single witness sufficiency – conviction may rest on one or two credible witnesses.
|
3 September 2014 |
|
|
3 September 2014 |
|
Court granted bail for six properly charged applicants but struck out and expunged incompetent or wrongly‑filed applications.
* Criminal procedure – Bail pending trial – Application under section 148 Criminal Procedure Act – requirement to specify the particular subsection relied upon – omission is fatal.
* Criminal procedure – Competency of application – false information in supporting affidavit renders an application incompetent; section 388 CPA cannot cure such defect in these circumstances.
* Parties – Relief sought by person not charged – material to be expunged.
* Bail conditions – bond amount, immovable-property sureties, regional travel restriction, monthly court and police reporting.
|
3 September 2014 |
|
Supplementary affidavit filed without leave expunged; temporary injunction granted to maintain status quo pending main suit.
Civil procedure — supplementary affidavits — leave of Court required; Temporary injunction — Atilio test — triable issue present; monetary losses not irreparable; balance of convenience may justify injunction; status quo pending main suit.
|
2 September 2014 |
|
A seven-year delay in referring a termination dispute to the CMA without sufficient reasons renders the matter time-barred and non-justiciable.
* Labour law – Limitation and jurisdiction of the CMA – Disputes about termination must be referred within 30 days (Rule 10(1) GN No.64/2007) – Late referral requires sufficient reasons for condonation. * Condonation – Poverty, seeking legal advice and ignorance of law are generally insufficient to grant extension of time. * Settlement – Acceptance of terminal/repatriation payment may preclude later claims.
|
2 September 2014 |
|
Ward Tribunal acted beyond pecuniary jurisdiction and decisions based on forged documents are nullities; appeal allowed.
* Land law – Jurisdiction of Ward Tribunal – Pecuniary limit (Tshs 3,000,000) under Land Disputes Courts Act – proceedings beyond jurisdiction are void.
* Evidence – Fabricated/forged documents – material defects (unsigned documents, inconsistent dates, incorrect official headings, suspect signatures) – documents of little weight.
* Civil procedure – Appellate duty to examine jurisdiction and basis of lower tribunal’s decision – quashing of decisions founded on lack of jurisdiction or forged evidence.
|
2 September 2014 |
|
Whether the ward tribunal lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and whether the judgment was based on fabricated documents.
Land law – Jurisdiction of Ward Tribunals – Pecuniary limit Tshs 3,000,000; civil procedure – proceedings and judgment void for lack of jurisdiction; evidence – reliance on defective or forged documents renders decision unsafe and may vitiate proceedings; interaction with criminal process – allegation of forgery may be reported to police but civil tribunal must assess document reliability.
|
2 September 2014 |
|
Ward Tribunal exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction and decisions based on forged documents are nullities; appeal allowed.
Land disputes – Ward Tribunal pecuniary jurisdiction – statutory limit Tshs 3,000,000 – proceedings and judgment in excess of jurisdiction are nullities; Evidence – fabricated/forged documents – defects undermine weight and admissibility; Appeal – appellate duty to quash decisions founded on lack of jurisdiction or forged documents.
|
2 September 2014 |
|
Where domestic rules for prerogative orders are lacking, reception of English common law (s.2(3) Cap.358) cures citation defects.
Administrative law — prerogative orders (mandamus, prohibition, certiorari) — section 19(3) Cap. 310 as time‑limitation, not sole enabling provision — lacuna in procedural rules — reception of English common law under section 2(3) Cap. 358 — improper or incomplete citation not automatically fatal.
|
2 September 2014 |
|
Citation of procedural provisions alone is not fatal; s.2(3) Cap.358 can supply authority for prerogative leave.
Administrative law; prerogative orders (mandamus, certiorari) – Preliminary objection on wrong citation – Interpretation of s.19(3) Cap.310 as time-limit not enabling provision; lacuna in Part VII – resort to common law via s.2(3) Cap.358 – competence of application despite other/statutory citation omissions.
|
2 September 2014 |
|
Circumstantial evidence that the applicant had custody of the key and missing cash justified conviction; appeal dismissed.
* Military law – Theft and causing loss of Defence Forces property – Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence demonstrating control of key and missing cash.
* Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Watertight circumstantial case and effect of inconsistent or afterthought explanations.
* Criminal procedure – Omnibus conviction and sentence – Whether lack of itemised reasons vitiates conviction or sentence.
* Defence – Consideration of defence evidence and standard for reasonable doubt.
|
2 September 2014 |
|
|
1 September 2014 |
|
A recorded compromise in a prior land suit precluded a later declaration of ownership and the suit was struck out.
Land law – ownership dispute – effect of prior compromise recorded in earlier suit – compromise vs res judicata; evidentiary effect of seller’s conduct (sale agreement and notices) on later ownership claim; striking out suit and vacating injunction.
|
1 September 2014 |
|
A prior court-recorded compromise declaring a respondent owner bars the applicant's later ownership claim unless set aside.
* Civil procedure — Res judicata — effect of compromise/deed of settlement — a compromise recorded by court is not a judicial decision but remains binding until set aside.
* Land law — ownership dispute — prior settlement declaring a party owner precluding subsequent contrary declaration while valid.
* Interim orders — vacation of restraint order where underlying claim is struck out.
* Evidence — prior sale agreement and conduct of parties relevant to ownership claim.
|
1 September 2014 |
| August 2014 |
|
|
Conviction for rape quashed due to unreliable identification and inadmissible delayed cautioned statement, not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Rape: assessment of virtual identification and need to eliminate mistaken identity; Child evidence – voir dire and corroboration under s127 Evidence Act; Cautioned statement recorded out of time – no evidential value; Hearsay-based arrest/identification undermining prosecution case.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Trial court erred by deciding no-case-to-answer without allowing appellant to reply, violating right to fair hearing.
Civil procedure — No case to answer — Defendant's submission after plaintiff's case — Plaintiff entitled to an opportunity to reply to written submissions — Written submissions not evidence — Right to fair hearing — Premature judgment vitiates proceedings.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Trial court erred in deciding "no case to answer" on written submissions without allowing appellant reply; judgment set aside.
Civil procedure — "no case to answer" after plaintiff's case — defendant's written submissions — written submissions have no evidential value — right to fair hearing and natural justice — requirement to invite replies and make ruling before judgment — remittal to trial court for proper procedure.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Plaintiff’s claim against non‑contracting defendants dismissed for lack of cause of action and failure to comply with court timetable.
Commercial law – Cause of action – Requirement that plaint disclose cause of action against each defendant; Privity of contract – strangers to contract cannot be sued on it; Civil procedure – compliance with court scheduling orders; Non-compliance may amount to failure to prosecute; Pleading requirements – reliance on unpleaded or missing annexures/paragraphs undermines cause of action.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
A magistrate cannot review a colleague's judgment in the same court where both had concurrent jurisdiction; such review is invalid.
* Civil Procedure — Review — Order 42 Rule 1(1)(b) CPC — review is correction by the same judicial officer; a judge cannot set aside a colleague’s order where both have concurrent jurisdiction. * Matrimonial proceedings — correction of decree — limits on review jurisdiction. * Procedural fairness — requirement to give notice before review/hearing.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Reported
A magistrate cannot review and alter a colleague’s judgment where both have concurrent jurisdiction.
* Civil Procedure – Review – whether a magistrate with concurrent jurisdiction can review and alter a colleague’s judgment – one judge cannot set aside another judge of the same court.
* Civil Procedure – Order 42 Rule 1(1)(b) CPC – scope and limits of review; review not an inherent power.
* Matrimonial causes – correction of decree – alleged mistake in property description and appropriateness of review.
* Civil Procedure – ex parte review – questions of notice and service raised but not determined where jurisdictional defect disposed of appeal.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
A magistrate with concurrent jurisdiction cannot review and set aside a fellow magistrate’s judgment; original decree restored.
Family law — matrimonial property and divorce; civil procedure — scope of review jurisdiction; whether a magistrate of concurrent jurisdiction may review a colleague’s judgment; requirement that review normally be by the same judicial officer; ex parte review and notice.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Appellate court upheld lawful clan‑meeting appointment of an administrator; appeal dismissed for lack of evidence and misdirected grounds.
* Civil procedure – appellate discretion under Order XX Rule 4 – court may condense or address decisive grounds rather than answer each ground seriatim.
* Succession/customary law – administration of intestate estate – applicability and proof of customary rule excluding a particular relative from appointment.
* Evidence – clan meeting minutes and attendance as proof of lawful appointment; allegation of pre‑appointment misappropriation requires clear proof.
* Procedure – place of clan meeting not fatal to validity of appointment.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Appellate court upheld clan-approved appointment of estate administrator; appeal dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
Succession and administration of intestate estates – customary law (Bena) – applicability where deceased resided in community – proof of lawful clan appointment (minutes) – appellate procedure: condensation of grounds of appeal – allegations of misappropriation and burden of proof – locus of clan meeting irrelevant to validity of appointment.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Extension refused for failure to prove pursuit of copies and sufficient cause for delay.
* Extension of time – application under Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act and Section 95 CPC – requirement to show sufficient cause; * Proof of pursuit for certified copies – necessity to lodge request at trial tribunal and annex such request to affidavit; * Appealability – decision on preliminary point of law that dismisses entire claim is final and appealable; * Discretionary nature of extension applications – application refused where documentary proof of delay is absent; * Relevant authorities – Mumello v Bank of Tanzania; Yusuf Mtambo and Mary Kimaro cited regarding orders and exclusion of time.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Revision dismissed: arbitrator correctly found no employment relationship; new evidence at revision disregarded.
Employment law – determination of employment relationship – application of section 61 indicators (control, remuneration, integration, source of income) – primacy of facts; Revision procedure – inadmissibility of new evidence not raised before CMA; Procedural compliance – requirement to state legal issues under Rule 24(3)(c).
|
29 August 2014 |
|
The court held procedural challenges can be points of law and granted the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
* Labour law – leave to appeal – point of law – procedural rules as part of law. * Appeals – procedure for challenging Registrar's decisions in execution proceedings – forum uncertainty. * Employment entitlements – rotational leave and overtime issues raised as issues for appellate determination.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Procedural rules can constitute points of law for leave to appeal; proper leave to represent must be filed.
* Labour law – leave to appeal – section 57 Labour Institutions Act – points of law requirement
* Civil procedure – procedural rules as part of the law – non-compliance may bar remedies
* Representation – advocate must obtain/file leave to represent other parties
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Plaintiff must repay VAT mistakenly charged on a tax-exempt import; plaintiff's claim for unpaid balance dismissed.
Commercial law — sale of goods and finance arrangements; promissory note and post-dated cheque; VAT on imported capital goods — VAT exemption and mistaken VAT collection; restitution/recovery of money paid by mistake; interest claims — burden and reasonableness; costs awarded to successful counter-claimant.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
The defendants recover USD 35,600 mistakenly paid as VAT; plaintiff's claim for unpaid purchase balance dismissed.
Commercial sale of motor vehicle – Promissory note and post-dated cheque – Burden of proof on alleged non-payment – VAT exemption on importation – Mistaken VAT-inclusive invoice paid by financier – Right to recover mistakenly paid VAT – Interest not awarded where rate not justified.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Financier paid VAT-inclusive price; plaintiff mistakenly retained VAT—defendants entitled to reimbursement of USD 35,600, plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Commercial law – sale of goods on credit – promissory note and post-dated cheque – evidentiary burden on payment; Tax law – VAT exemption on imported capital goods – mistaken tax invoice and restitution; Remedies – recovery of money mistakenly paid; Interest – refusal of high commercial rate absent proof.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Night-time identification and untested retracted cautioned statements cannot safely sustain a conviction.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – night-time visual identification – requirements to eliminate mistaken identity (Waziri Amani principle).
* Evidence – identification – need to specify lighting, distance, duration and other particulars for safe identification.
* Evidence – cautioned statements – repudiated statements require trial-within-trial/inquiries into voluntariness; uncorroborated retracted confessions cannot sustain conviction.
* Appeal – conviction quashed where both identification and confession evidence were unsafe.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Lower court’s piecemeal hearing and mid‑hearing competence objections breached fair hearing; proceedings set aside and remitted for rehearing.
Civil procedure – setting aside ex parte decree – consolidated chamber summons for extension of time and setting aside decree – obligation to hear cumulatively – competence objections to be taken as preliminary objections – right to fair hearing and principles of natural justice – nullification and rehearing.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Lower court's piecemeal hearing and mid-hearing competence objections breached fair hearing; ruling set aside and rehearing ordered.
Civil procedure — application to set aside ex parte decree — extension of time — combined chamber application — requirement to hear combined prayers cumulatively — competence/incorrect citation objections must be raised as preliminary objections — breach of natural justice and right to fair hearing vitiates proceedings.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Village council cannot reallocate land lawfully allocated to the respondent without consent; appeal dismissed.
* Land law – allocation and reallocation of customary/village land – limits on village council power to take away land allocated to a lawful occupier and reallocate it without consent.
* Evidence – assessment on the balance of probabilities in land disputes; non‑necessity of locus visit where evidence suffices.
* Possession/time bar – vacating during villagization does not automatically extinguish prior lawful allocation without further proof of abandonment or lawful reallocation.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Decisions of subordinate courts in a land dispute were nullified for lack of jurisdiction; parties directed to approach a competent tribunal.
* Land law – jurisdiction – section 4(1) Land Disputes Courts Act (Cap.216 R.E.2002) ousts Magistrates’ Courts’ civil jurisdiction over land matters; proceedings in courts without jurisdiction are nullities. * Civil procedure – appellate duty – appellate courts must verify jurisdiction before hearing appeals. * Remedy – quashing and setting aside subordinate courts’ decisions and referring parties to competent tribunal.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Court quashed lower courts' awards because Primary and District Courts lacked jurisdiction over the land dispute.
* Jurisdiction — Land disputes — Section 4(1) Land Disputes Courts Act — Magistrates' courts ousted of civil jurisdiction in land matters; * Appeals — Competence to entertain appeals arising from jurisdictionally defective proceedings; * Remedy — Nullification/quashing of judgments delivered without jurisdiction.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Applicant's sworn payment claim, though disputed, raised a bona fide triable issue; unconditional leave to defend was granted.
* Commercial procedure – summary suit – Order XXXV Rule 3(1) CPC – leave to appear and defend – requirement of a bona fide triable issue. * Affidavit evidence – court’s limited role at leave stage – no requirement to produce best evidence before trial. * Allegation of prior repayment – disputed sworn statements create triable issues precluding summary judgment. * Admission of liability as to part of claim does not preclude leave where other triable issues exist.
|
29 August 2014 |
|
Review granted where lifting of attachment without service and new evidence justified reinstatement of attachment.
Civil procedure — Review under Order 42 r.1(b) — discovery of new and important evidence; mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; failure of service and right to be heard; reinstatement of attachment order.
|
28 August 2014 |
|
Conviction quashed and applicant released where trial judgment unavailable and substantial portion of sentence already served.
* Criminal procedure – Revision under s.372 – Failure to provide copy of judgment and unavailability of original records – Quashing of conviction and sentence.
* Criminal procedure – Retrial – When retrial is inappropriate where convict has served substantial part of sentence and records are missing.
* Evidence/procedure – Right to obtain judgment – Impact of missing trial record on fairness and administration of justice.
|
28 August 2014 |
|
Insurer liable for proven fire loss, but indemnity limited to the proved insurable value, not the claimed amount.
Insurance law – fire policy – existence of policy and insured sums; notice of loss; proof of loss and valuation; indemnity limited to proven insurable value and policy limits; interest on decretal amount.
|
28 August 2014 |
|
The applicant's claim for lease damages was dismissed as res judicata despite a disclosed cause of action.
* Res judicata – whether prior proceedings between same parties on same cause preclude relitigation; * Elements of res judicata: same parties, same subject matter, same title, final decision by competent tribunal; * Cause of action – plaint discloses lease dispute but res judicata is dispositive.
|
28 August 2014 |
|
Where an employer fails to produce written particulars, the employer must prove termination fairness; absence of proof supports unfair dismissal finding.
* Employment law – burden of proof – unfair termination – Section 39 ELRA places onus on employer to prove termination was fair. * Employment law – absence of written particulars – Section 15(6) ELRA shifts evidential burden to employer to prove terms. * Procedure – misapplication of Section 60(2)(a) of Labour Institutions Act cannot displace employer’s burden under ELRA. * Remedy – compensation and statutory benefits for unfair termination.
|
27 August 2014 |
|
Adultery proved on balance of probabilities; appeal dismissed and damages awarded to the respondent upheld.
* Family law – Adultery – proof on balance of probabilities; being found in a compromising situation suffices without proving intercourse.
* Locus standi – husband’s right to sue where his spouse is alleged to have committed adultery.
* Evidence – materiality of contradictions in witness testimony; non-material timing discrepancies do not defeat a credible finding.
* Appellate procedure – new complaints not raised in petition of appeal are waived as afterthoughts.
|
27 August 2014 |
|
Court dismissed time-bar preliminary objection, finding correct computation (excluding weekends) made the application timely and allowed it to proceed.
Labour procedure — computation of time for compliance with court order — application of Law of Interpretation Act (Cap 1) to exclude weekends — where procedural rules are silent court may adopt appropriate procedure — preliminary objection on time bar dismissed.
|
27 August 2014 |
|
Excluding weekends under the Interpretation Act, the applicant’s extension application fell within seven days; preliminary objection dismissed.
Labour procedure – computation of time – where court orders filing within a number of days, computation governed by Law of Interpretation Act (Cap 1 R.E.2002) excluding weekends; Labour Court Rules silent – court may adopt appropriate procedure; preliminary objection on time bar dismissed.
|
27 August 2014 |
|
Computation of time: weekends excluded; the applicant’s extension application held filed within seven days; preliminary objection dismissed.
Labour procedure — computation of time; Labour Court Rules GN.106/2007 — Court may adopt appropriate procedure where rules silent; Interpretation Act (Cap 1) s.60(2) — exclusion of weekends in computing time; preliminary objection on time-bar dismissed; application for extension allowed to proceed.
|
27 August 2014 |
|
Victim and eyewitness testimony can suffice to prove rape; absence of medical evidence or late fabrication allegations do not automatically vitiate conviction.
Criminal law — Rape — Victim and eyewitness testimony as primary evidence — Lack of medical evidence not necessarily fatal — Court record presumed accurate — Afterthought allegations of fabrication inadmissible on appeal.
|
27 August 2014 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause—delay unexplained and proposed grounds did not disclose illegality—extension to seek revision refused.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – 'Good cause' requires sufficient reasons for delay and prima facie grounds (illegality/extraordinary error) for revision. * Labour law – Revision of CMA awards – applicant must particularize illegality or exceptional errors to justify late challenge. * Procedural law – Lack of diligence and vague pleadings insufficient to obtain extension of time.
|
27 August 2014 |
|
Appeal filed out of time; court record preferred over appellant's contrary claim; out-of-time appeals must be dismissed, not struck out.
Criminal procedure – appeal time limits – appeals to District Court must be filed within thirty days of trial court judgment – presumption of correctness of court records – failure to seek extension or use statutory procedures – consequence is dismissal under Law of Limitation, not striking out.
|
27 August 2014 |
|
Reported
Failure to file an appeal within thirty days without seeking extension renders the appeal incompetent and must be dismissed.
Criminal procedure – appeal from primary court to district court – time limit for filing appeals (s.20(3), Magistrates' Courts Act) – extension of time and oral grounds (s.20(4)(b)) – presumption of accuracy of court records – dismissal vs striking out – Law of Limitation.
|
27 August 2014 |