|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2015 |
|
|
Appellate court increased general damages, recognized proven special damages, rejected spousal constant-care claim; each party bears own costs.
• Motor-vehicle collisions – burden of proof on contributory negligence; lack of defendant evidence precludes finding plaintiff’s negligence.
• Damages – assessment of general damages for permanent partial incapacity; appellate variation of inadequate awards.
• Special damages – strict proof by receipts; failure to award proven special damages is error.
• Pecuniary claims for spousal ‘constant care’ – generally not a separate head of recoverable damages.
• Interest – propriety of awarding interest from date of judgment at court rate.
|
31 December 2015 |
|
The appellant’s civil marriage was void; court ordered sale and division of joint assets and custody to the mother.
Law of Marriage Act — s.38(1)(c) nullity where existing marriage subsists; s.114(1) division/sale of assets acquired by joint efforts; s.128 custody of infant to mother where marriage is nullity; s.129 paternal duty of maintenance; distinction between void marriage and concubinage; sale and division of matrimonial assets (including motor vehicle).
|
30 December 2015 |
|
Appellate court dismissed land appeal for failure to produce admissible evidence and properly argue grounds; documents outside record not admitted.
Land appeal — admissibility of documents on appeal — documents not produced before lower tribunal cannot be considered on appeal; appellant must advance and argue grounds with admissible evidence; locus in quo inspection expense claims not substantiated in record.
|
30 December 2015 |
|
Appeal dismissed: absence and late appearance prevented reopening of case and tribunal’s evaluation of evidence was upheld.
* Land law – ownership dispute – evaluation of evidence by Tribunal – application of balance of probabilities; * Civil procedure – effect of party’s absence and late appearance – striking out of objection and refusal to admit late evidence; * Appellate review – when appellate court will not disturb factual findings of trial tribunal.
|
30 December 2015 |
|
|
30 December 2015 |
|
Appellant failed to prove ownership; court upheld tribunal’s finding that respondents’ evidence and documents were stronger.
Land dispute – ownership – evaluation of conflicting oral and documentary evidence; burden of proof under s.110(1) Evidence Act; credibility and weight of evidence; appeal dismissed and tribunal decision upheld.
|
30 December 2015 |
|
The applicant must sue the employer/branch, not individual respondents, for property seized during eviction for unpaid rent.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – wrong party sued – whether suit against individual agents instead of employer/branch is maintainable; Agency/vicarious liability – actions of agents in eviction and seizure – employer/branch responsibility; Capacity to be sued – non-corporate branch liable for acts concerning its premises; Pleadings – requirement to sue the proper party before trial.
|
29 December 2015 |
|
Appeal dismissed: wrong parties sued—branch (employer/agent) is the proper defendant despite lacking corporate registration.
Civil procedure – Parties – Proper party to sue; agency/employment – acts of agents in eviction and seizure; capacity to sue – non‑registered branch held responsible; preliminary objection – point of law vs factual issue.
|
29 December 2015 |
|
A litigant must sue the proper party; an unincorporated branch can be held liable for agents' eviction and seizure of property.
Civil procedure – Proper parties to a suit – Suit against individuals for acts done in course of employment/agency – Liability of unincorporated political party branch; Preliminary objections – Point of law versus factual disputes.
|
29 December 2015 |
|
Where a sale contract lacks a specified time, termination or damages require proof of loss; title must be handed over on payment.
Contract law – Sale of land – Time for performance not specified – Section 55(1) and (2), Law of Contract Cap.345 R.E.2002 – Termination and damages – Requirement to prove loss before awarding compensation.
|
29 December 2015 |
|
Review of strike-out dismissed where applicant’s settlement undertaking and prolonged non-prosecution justified striking out.
Civil procedure – review of interlocutory/order – strike-out of suit for failure to prosecute and parties’ undertaking to settle; review limited to errors apparent on face of record; court will not revise its own order as if on appeal; effect of expired speed-track and failure to extend.
|
29 December 2015 |
|
Conflicting ward tribunal judgments render proceedings null and require a de novo rehearing before a competent tribunal.
Procedural irregularity – duplicate/conflicting judgments at ward tribunal – fatal irregularity – decisions declared nullity – matter ordered reheard de novo before competent tribunal; no order as to costs.
|
29 December 2015 |
|
|
28 December 2015 |
|
Failure to read and explain an amended charge and to record plea is a fatal procedural irregularity, quashing the conviction.
* Criminal procedure – Amendment/substitution of charges – duty to state substance of charge and record plea (Section 228 CPA) – failure fatal. * Criminal procedure – Effect of trying accused on particulars not put to him – conviction quashed. * Evidence – issues on cautioned statement, certificate of seizure and exhibit identification raised but not determined.
|
23 December 2015 |
|
Stay application rejected because decree dismissing the matter as res judicata was not executable.
Stay of execution; res judicata; executability of decree; inability to stay execution of non-executable orders; costs discretion.
|
22 December 2015 |
|
Section 148(4) CPA unconstitutional for denying suspects and accused a fair hearing before bail is refused by DPP certificate.
Constitutional law — fair hearing (Article 13(6)(a)) — bail — section 148(4) Criminal Procedure Act — DPP's certificate — denial of right to be heard — separation of functions — public-interest enforcement — purposive interpretation.
|
22 December 2015 |
|
|
22 December 2015 |
|
The appeal was struck out for being time-barred and for failing to be instituted by the statutorily required Petition of Appeal.
* Civil procedure – Appeals – Time limitation – 30 days under s.25(1)(b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act – days run from date of delivery of judgment; absence of extension application renders late appeal time-barred. * Civil procedure – Appeals – Form of appeal – Petition of Appeal required by s.25(3); filing "Grounds of Appeal" does not comply.
|
22 December 2015 |
|
An interim market committee retains locus standi to challenge its disbandment despite an expired term; matter remitted for hearing.
Procedural irregularity—failure to state whether suit was dismissed or struck out; Locus standi—expired interim committee retains interest to challenge disbandment; Preliminary objection—merits left for hearing; Revision—remit to another magistrate.
|
22 December 2015 |
|
Appeal dismissed: revision was time‑barred and not the proper remedy instead of an appeal.
Probate and administration; limitation period for revision (Item 21, Part II, Law of Limitation Act); competency of revision applications; revision vs appeal; requirements to demonstrate illegality/incorrectness/impropriety in subordinate court proceedings.
|
22 December 2015 |
|
A petition of appeal that is extraneous to the impugned order (grounds do not match the actual ruling) is rejected without costs.
Civil procedure – appeal – petition of appeal premised on a ground not matching the impugned order – petition found extraneous and rejected.
|
22 December 2015 |
|
Decisions in objection proceedings are not appealable; aggrieved parties must sue to establish rights.
* Civil procedure — Objection proceedings — Appealability — Order XXI rule 62 CPC — Decisions in objection proceedings are not appealable.
* Procedure — Remedy — Aggrieved party should institute a fresh suit to establish rights rather than appeal an objection ruling.
* Limitation — Timeliness — Appeals filed late are time-barred; appeal in the case would have been hopelessly time-barred.
* Representation — Unrepresented appellant — appeal prima facie unmaintainable.
|
22 December 2015 |
|
Illegible trial record precluded adjudication; retrial refused as not in interests of justice, conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – appeal – defective or unintelligible trial record – when retrial should be ordered; discretion to order retrial guided by "interests of justice" (Fatehali Manji principle); considerations include trauma to complainant and time served by accused.
|
21 December 2015 |
|
Court fixed reduced security for costs under the National Elections Act after balancing hardship and respondents' protection.
* Election law – Security for costs – Determination under s.111(3) National Elections Act – Court discretion to fix amount (ceiling TShs 5,000,000).
* Election law – Waiver/exemption – s.111(5) is distinct and invoked after amount determination.
* Evidence – Affidavit must deponed facts of financial hardship; submissions from the bar insufficient.
* Procedure – Security under Elections Act differs from security under Order XXV CPC; GM Combined authority inapplicable.
|
21 December 2015 |
|
|
18 December 2015 |
|
High Court dismissed appeal: evidence did not prove cruelty or irretrievable marriage breakdown; BAKWATA certificate insufficient alone.
Law of Marriage Act s.107 – irretrievable breakdown – proof required; cruelty – legal definition and threshold; reconciliation board certificate (BAKWATA) not alone conclusive proof of breakdown; appellate review of divorce/nullity decrees.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Applicant failed to prove entitlement; tribunal properly evaluated evidence and lawfully upheld the sale to the respondents.
Land law — ownership and succession — administrator's powers — evidentiary burden; admissibility of representation at trial; locus in quo inspection; immovable fixtures (graves) pass with land; appellate review limited where objections not raised at trial.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Unexplained 55‑day delay after liberty to refile was inordinate; extension of time denied and application dismissed with costs.
Extension of time — duty to account for each day of delay — liberty to refile 'subject to limitation' requires prompt action — reasonable period fixed at 14 days — unexplained 55‑day delay held inordinate — application dismissed with costs.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Employer’s dismissal while employee was hospitalised was unfair; CMA award largely upheld but 50‑month backpay quashed.
Labour law – unfair termination (substantive and procedural) – employer-issued sick sheet and hospital records – requirement to investigate before dismissal – admissibility and evaluation of evidence at CMA – arbitrator may award statutory employment remedies not strictly pleaded in CMA Form No.1 – quashing of excessive backpay where delay is attributable to tribunal.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Applicant granted extension to file notice of appeal after court found procedural defects did not show lack of diligence.
Civil procedure – extension of time to file Notice of Appeal – previous striking out for procedural defects (unsigned notice; unauthorised/unattested affidavit) – sufficiency of reasons and diligence – discretion to grant extension.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Appeal allowed: prosecution failed to prove corruption, key witnesses not called and essential elements unproven.
* Criminal law – Corruption offences under Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act – elements of abuse of position, embezzlement/misappropriation and conspiracy. * Evidence – prosecution duty to call material witnesses; adverse inference where key witnesses available but not called. * Proof – requirement to prove receipt/conversion of funds for embezzlement; conspiracy requires evidence of agreement.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Appeal dismissed because the memorandum of appeal lacked the mandatory copy of the decree; non‑compliance is fatal.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Order XXXIX r.1(1) CPC – Memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by copy of decree (and judgment unless dispensed with) – Non‑compliance fatal – Lay status of appellant does not excuse defect.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Appeal dismissed: court upheld damages for amputation and loss of earnings, refusing to apply restitutio in integrum or contributory negligence.
Employment compensation – injury to employee’s finger – restitutio in integrum not applicable to loss of organ; contributory negligence inapplicable where claim is compensation as workman; assessment of general damages discretionary and justified by severity and amputation; pleaded loss of earnings recoverable without stricter proof.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Appeal allowed due to inconsistency between charge and conviction; driving licence cancellation reduced to 18 months.
Criminal law – inconsistency between charge and conviction – appellate intervention – variation of sentence (licence cancellation) when prosecution concedes anomaly.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Court quashed an unintelligible magistrate’s commercial judgment for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and upheld beneficiaries’ trust claims against the employer.
Commercial law – banker–customer remittance – pecuniary jurisdiction of Magistrate’s Court; invalidity of proceedings for want of jurisdiction; judgment intelligibility and reasons. Trusts/Employment – group endowment/assurance scheme – existence and enforcement of Trust Deed; trustees as custodians; effect of failure to register trust deed; enforceability against employer but not insurer where insurer paid employer. Relief – percentage-based benefit awards and interest.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
A stay under section 8 CPC requires same parties and substantially identical issues; absent these, stay refused.
* Civil procedure — res sub judice (section 8 CPC) — mandatory rule; plea not defeated by Limitation Act.
* Requirements for stay under section 8 CPC — earlier and later suits, same parties/title, directly and substantially same matter, competent jurisdiction.
* Locus standi — competency of an administrative receiver to depose affidavits may raise contested factual issues and is not invariably a preliminary legal point.
* Res judicata — an earlier decision operates as res judicata only where matters in issue are directly and substantially identical.
* Non-joinder — curable by amendment (Order I r.9 CPC).
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Res sub judice is mandatory and not time-barred, but stay denied where parties or subject matter are not substantially identical.
* Civil procedure – res sub judice (section 8 CPC) – mandatory rule – plea for invocation not time-barred under Limitation Act.
* Civil procedure – conditions for stay under section 8 CPC – same parties or litigating under same title; matter directly and substantially the same.
* Evidence and procedure – locus standi and allegations of contempt based on disputed factual status are not pure preliminary points of law.
* Civil procedure – non-joinder – curable by amendment (Order 1 r.9 CPC).
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Applicant allowed to withdraw land suit due to duplicate proceedings; withdrawal granted with no orders as to costs.
Civil procedure — Withdrawal of suit — Duplicate proceedings pending between same parties — Withdrawal allowed despite respondent not served — No order as to costs.
|
17 December 2015 |
|
Unclear capacity and representation of the village council rendered the trial defective; proceedings quashed and retrial ordered.
Land law – capacity of village council to sue or be sued; representation of local authorities at trial; misjoinder/non-joinder of necessary parties; assessor substitution and procedural irregularities; quashing tribunal proceedings and ordering retrial.
|
17 December 2015 |
|
An unparticularised claim of attending a sick relative does not constitute good cause to extend time to appeal.
Extension of time – requirement to demonstrate "good cause" – bare or vague assertions (e.g., attending a sick relative) without particulars or documentary proof insufficient – appellate review of discretionary refusal to extend time.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
DRE recommendations made after finding the contract void cannot create enforceable rights to detained goods.
Contract law – void ab initio – effect on dispute resolution: a Dispute Review Expert who finds the host contract void lacks jurisdiction to determine rights arising from that contract; such recommendations exceed jurisdiction and have no legal effect; arbitral/non-arbitral status of DRE recommendations; torts – trespass to goods and detinue – cannot be founded on invalid DRE recommendations; restitution/claims based on enforcement of a void contract; evidentiary requirements for storage charges.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Court reduced statutory security for costs in election petition, ordering TZS 2,500,000 per respondent.
* Election law – security for costs – section 111(3) and (5)(b) Election Petition Act – discretion to reduce or waive statutory security – balancing access to justice and preventing vexatious petitions; legislative response to Court of Appeal authority.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
A stay of execution was granted in a matrimonial property distribution dispute due to decree ambiguities and risk of substantial loss to the applicant.
* Civil Procedure – Stay of execution pending appeal – Order XXXIX Rule 5 & s.95 CPC – requirements of substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security. * Family law – Matrimonial property distribution – special considerations and discretion to dispense with security. * Appeal procedure – ambiguities in trial court decree as ground for stay pending appeal.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Adoption granted where petitioners satisfied statutory suitability tests and the child's best interests; registrar to record adoption.
* Adoption law – Law of the Child Act and Adoption Rules – consent of social welfare authority and guardian ad litem report; best interests of the child; statutory tests under ss.54–59. * Registration – entry in Adopted Children Register and marking birth register “ADOPTED” (ss.69, 70(4)). * Change of name and costs.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Failure to file written submissions under Rule 106(1) rendered the appeal non‑maintainable and it was struck out.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal – mandatory filing of written submissions under Rule 106(1) – consequences of non‑compliance under Rule 106(9)/(19).
* Procedural law – Preliminary objection for non‑compliance – discretion to extend time – limits to invocation of Rule 2 (substantive justice) to override mandatory rules.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Applicant may combine determination of security for costs and exemption; title defect curable—amend and re-file with costs.
* Election law – security for costs – sections 111(3) and 111(5) National Elections Act – determination and exemption. * Procedural compliance – Form A (Rule 5(1), GN. No. 447/2010) – curable defects under Rule 32(1). * Civil procedure – omnibus applications – combining related prayers allowed absent specific prohibition; legislative intent of speedy disposal of election petitions.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Applicant may combine determination of security-for-costs and exemption; caption defect curable; amend and re-file.
Elections law – security for costs – combining determination of security amount and exemption in one application; procedural rules – compliance with Form A caption – curable under Rule 32(1); omnibus applications – permitted absent specific statutory prohibition; speed in election petition disposal.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
A bank may recover sums paid on dishonoured uncleared cheques; corporate customer liable, director not personally liable absent evidence.
Banking law – recovery of money paid under mistake; uncleared cheques credited to customer; dishonour and reversal of entries; change-of-position defence; personal liability of company director/signatory.
|
16 December 2015 |
|
Bank may recover funds paid on dishonoured uncleared cheques; company liable, director not personally liable.
Banking law — Crediting of uncleared cheques — Dishonoured/stopped cheques — Recovery for money paid under mistake — Change of position/unjust enrichment defence — Personal liability of company director/signatory.
|
16 December 2015 |