|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2019 |
|
|
Arbitration referral application rendered moot after auction and certificate of sale; preliminary objections partly upheld.
Arbitration — Referral to arbitration — Jurisdiction and omission to cite enabling law — Overriding-objective/cure of procedural irregularities; Corporate actions during receivership — authority of director and locus standi; Interim preservation orders — overtaken by events where auction concluded and certificate of sale issued.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
A preservation order pending arbitration is moot once a valid auction concludes and a certificate of sale is issued.
Arbitration – referral to arbitration – preservation of subject matter pending arbitration – effect of post-filing auction and certificate of sale rendering relief moot. Civil procedure – overriding-objective; omission to cite enabling provision not fatal where jurisdiction exists. Companies/Receivership – capacity of company under receivership to sue; authority and locus standi of statutory director/majority shareholder.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
Plaintiff, as estate administrator, entitled to declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction after defendant's unlawful eviction attempt.
Land law – ownership – administrator of deceased estate – presumption of ownership where administrator holds title documents. Equity and remedies – perpetual injunction to protect possession from unlawful eviction attempts by third parties. Civil procedure – failure to prosecute/defend and counsel withdrawal – effect on merits and reliefs.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
Applicant granted extension under s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act to file reply; must file within 14 days.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act — "sufficient cause" — discretionary relief — right to be heard — overriding objective under Article 107A(e) — costs: each party to bear own.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
Court granted extension of time to file reply, finding applicants showed sufficient cause and emphasizing right to be heard.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – discretionary power of court – "sufficient cause" to be assessed by reference to all circumstances. Procedural fairness – right to be heard and overriding constitutional objective (Article 107A(e)) – justice not to be defeated by technicalities.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
A valid DPP certificate under section 36(2) of the Act bars bail; the court may only test the certificate's validity.
Criminal procedure – Bail – DPP's certificate under section 36(2) EOCCA – validity test: written; asserts prejudice to safety/interests of the Republic; relates to the pending criminal case – effect: court may only assess validity, not grant bail if valid.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
Failure to obtain assessors' opinions before judgment nullifies tribunal proceedings and mandates retrial.
Land disputes — Composition of District Land and Housing Tribunal — Mandatory role of assessors — Requirement to invite and record assessors' opinions before judgment (s.23(2) Land Disputes Courts Act; Reg.19(2) Regulations) — Failure to obtain opinions is incurable and vitiates proceedings; retrial ordered.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
High Court granted bail pending trial where alleged government trophies exceed Tshs.10,000,000, subject to statutory securities and conditions.
Criminal procedure – Bail pending trial – Economic and Organized Crime Control Act – jurisdiction of High Court where value of alleged government trophies exceeds Tshs.10,000,000/= – sections 29(4)(d) and 36(1). Bail conditions – Sections 36(5) and (6) EOCCA – cash bond or title deed equal to half value and promissory bond by surety. Wildlife/trophies offences – security and travel document surrender as conditions for bail.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
Unreliable visual identification precludes armed robbery conviction; recent unexplained possession supports receiving stolen property conviction.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Necessity of reliable visual identification to convict for identity-dependent violent offences. Evidence – Recent possession of stolen property – inference supports conviction for receiving/being in possession of stolen property (s.313) but does not substitute for proof of participation in robbery. Criminal procedure – Substitution of conviction to lesser proved offence and variation of sentence. Mob arrest/false implication – mere apprehension by a mob without corroborative evidence does not justify conviction for robbery.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
Where the DPP files a valid s.36(2) certificate, the court tests the certificate’s validity and will not grant bail.
Criminal procedure – bail – effect of DPP's certificate under s.36(2) EOCCA – court to test validity, not entertain bail on merits; validity test: writing, prejudice to safety/interests of the Republic, and relation to a pending criminal case. "Pending" includes cases at subordinate court awaiting committal.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
A court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a party’s direct request for legal opinion on an arbitration issue; only the arbitrator may state a special case.
Arbitration law – sections 11(b) and 12(3) – only arbitrator may state a special case for the High Court’s opinion; parties cannot directly seek such opinion. Jurisdiction – High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain parties’ petition under Arbitration Act/Rules where no special case is stated by arbitrator. Arbitration procedure – issues already reserved to arbitrator (to be included in final award) are not proper for court determination. Inherent jurisdiction – limited by specific statutory arbitration procedure.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
Ex‑parte judgment for bank enforcing an unsecured staff loan; principal, interest, reduced general damages and costs awarded.
Contract/Loans – existence and enforcement of unsecured staff loan – loan application, offer letter and statements as evidence. Evidence – ex parte proof where defendant not served; documentary evidence accepted. Remedies – assessment and reduction of claimed general damages; award of commercial and court interest and costs.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
Withholding costs requires written reasons under section 30(2); absence of reasons justifies awarding costs on appeal.
Civil procedure — Costs — Judicial discretion to award or withhold costs — Section 30(1) & (2) Civil Procedure Code — Mandatory requirement to state written reasons when costs are withheld — Failure to give reasons renders discretion unjudicious — Appeal allowed and costs awarded.
|
31 October 2019 |
|
Revision was incompetent where an appeal was the proper remedy; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Revision – Competency of revision where right of appeal exists – limine litis – Magistrates Courts Act s25(1)(b); Costs – general rule awarding costs to successful litigant – waiver requires sufficient reasons.
|
30 October 2019 |
|
Corporate veil lifted; defendant personally liable to repay TZS 120 million after auction nullification.
Auction nullification; entitlement to restitution of purchase price; lifting corporate veil for fraud and improper conduct; judgment on admission; failure to prove special/punitive damages.
|
30 October 2019 |
|
Lack of diligence and no apparent illegality preclude extension of time to appeal; application dismissed.
Extension of time — sufficiency of reasons; duty to account for each day of delay; negligence/lack of diligence; illegality must be apparent on face of record; judgment entered on admission; extension refused.
|
30 October 2019 |
|
Extension of time denied where applicant failed to account for delay and alleged illegality was not apparent on the record.
• Civil procedure — extension of time to appeal — requirement of sufficient reasons and due diligence
• Limitation law — applicant must account for each day of delay
• Illegality — ground for extension only if apparent on the face of the record
• Judgment on admission — weakens claim of illegality not apparent from record
|
30 October 2019 |
|
Revision dismissed as incompetent where an appeal was the proper remedy; costs awarded to the respondent.
Revision v. appeal — competence of revision where statutory right of appeal exists; Magistrates Courts Act s.25(1)(b); preliminary objection; costs — discretion to waive costs and requirement for concrete reasons.
|
30 October 2019 |
|
Plaintiff lacked the specific power of attorney to sue; suit struck out for incompetence.
Civil procedure – Locus standi – Requirement of a special power of attorney under Order 3 Rule 2(a) CPC – Strict construction of powers of attorney. Civil procedure – Res sub judice – Section 8 CPC – effect of pending related proceedings. Relief – Suit struck out for incompetence where plaintiff lacked authority to institute proceedings.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Landlord breach (withholding title, failing to appoint valuer) made eviction unlawful; plaintiff awarded partial refund, damages and costs.
Lease law – interpretation of express terms: development period, valuer appointment, cost cap, rent commencement and recovery of development costs from rent. Landlord obligations – duty to provide title and appoint contractual valuer. Breach and unlawful eviction – delay and failures by landlord rendered eviction unlawful. Remedial calculation – set‑off of recoverable development expenditure against rent due; mitigation by environmental illegality of part of development. Environmental law – construction prohibited within riverbank buffer limits affecting recoverability of development costs.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Summary judgment granted where defendants failed to prosecute leave to defend; plaintiff awarded US$72,528, interest and costs.
Summary suit — Order XXXV (summary procedure) — leave to defend dismissed for want of prosecution — documentary proof of debt — summary judgment for principal sum, interest and costs.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Extension of time granted where delay resulted from the trial court’s failure to supply judgment copies, not applicant’s negligence.
Limitation of actions – Extension of time under s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act – Failure of trial court to supply copies of judgment as sufficient cause to enlarge time. Civil procedure – discretionary grant of extension – need for explanation where applicant delays – authorities applied: Tanzania Sewing Machine Co.; Kalunga & Co.; Osward Masatu Mwizarubi factors.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Delay in filing appeal caused by court's failure to supply judgment copies justified extension of time and costs.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – delay caused by trial court's failure to supply copies of judgment – sufficient ground for enlargement of time. Limitation law – section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – exercise of judicial discretion. Requirement to account for delay – when court omission excuses applicant's failure to file timely appeal.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Court refused substantive amendment to plaint, struck out suit and allowed filing of a fresh suit.
Civil Procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Order VI r.17 – amendment that alters subject matter or expands claim not permitted; Striking out suit – Order XXIII r.2(b) – liberty to institute fresh suit; Parties bound by their pleadings.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Court refused substantive amendment that altered the claim and struck out suit with liberty to file a fresh action.
Civil procedure — Amendment of pleadings (Order VI r.17) — Amendment that alters the root of the claim — Where substantive change sought, fresh suit recommended — Strike out with liberty to institute fresh proceedings (Order XXIII r.2(b)).
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Breach of refurbishment contract: specific damages unproven; applicant awarded USD 100,000 general damages and costs.
Contract law – formation and terms – breach of refurbishment and supervision contract; Evidence – burden of proof for specific damages; failure to call material witnesses – adverse inference; Damages – specific damages must be strictly proved; general damages awarded where loss shown but specific quantification lacking.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Whether defendant breached a refurbishment contract and whether plaintiff proved specific damages; court awarded general damages.
Contract — existence and scope; breach of contract by failing to supervise/complete refurbishment and delayed customs clearance; proof of specific damages — requirement to plead and strictly prove with witnesses/receipts; adverse inference for failure to call material witnesses; award of general (not specific) damages; ex parte proceedings.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Court granted extension to appeal where District Court lacked jurisdiction over probate exceeding Tshs 10,000.
Extension of time – Illegality as sufficient cause – Jurisdiction in probate matters – District Court limited to "small estates" not exceeding Tshs 10,000 – s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act – s.95 Civil Procedure Code – Probate and Administration Act Cap 352.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Interim injunctions under winding-up law apply to company assets only; veil-piercing and restraining non-parties are inappropriate at interlocutory stage.
Companies law – Interim relief on winding-up petition (s.282) – Scope limited to company assets (s.284) – Corporate veil not to be pierced lightly – Non-party misjoinder – Interlocutory injunction criteria (Atilio v Mbowe).
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Appeal dismissed: respondent's retracted, uncorroborated confession and unsupported witness evidence failed to prove organised poaching offences.
Criminal law – Requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; Retracted/cautioned confession – voluntariness and need for corroboration; Evidence – limits of co-accused statements as corroboration (s.33 Evidence Act); Constructive possession – awareness and control; Proof of telephone communications and financial transactions.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Appellant found liable for conversion of group funds; admission and witness evidence justified dismissal of appeal with costs.
Civil law – Tort – Conversion – nature and elements; liability where custodian misappropriates trust funds. Evidence – Admissions/confessions – voluntariness and admissibility; corroboration where admission exists. Evidence – Burden of proof in civil cases (s119 Evidence Act) – claimant's duty to prove claim. Evidence – Documentary evidence – failure to tender books/ledgers does not necessarily defeat claim when conversion is admitted. Civil procedure – Appeal – appellate interference unwarranted where trial court properly assessed evidence.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Conviction for statutory rape quashed where prosecution failed to prove victim's age beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal appeal – statutory rape – proof of victim's age is essential and must be established beyond reasonable doubt – best evidence of age is parent/custodian/teacher – missing trial records and reconstruction – benefit of doubt to accused – conviction quashed.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
An appeal filed without the decree required by Order XXXIX R.1 is incompetent and was struck out without costs.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by copy of decree/judgment (Order XXXIX R.1 Cap.33); non-compliance renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; court may raise procedural defects suo motu; substantive issues not considered where procedural defect is fatal.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Appeal struck out because the memorandum of appeal failed to include the required copy of the decree, a fatal procedural defect.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by copy of decree/judgment appealed from (Order XXXIX R.1 Cap.33) – Non‑compliance is fatal and renders appeal incompetent. Civil procedure – Court may raise procedural defects suo motu and strike out appeal – distinction between striking out and dismissal. Authorities – Stanley Kahama Mariki v Chilinyo Kwisila; H.J. Stanley & Sons Ltd v Ally Ramadhani Kanyamale.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Plaintiff conceded objection; suit dismissed with leave to refile and plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs.
Civil procedure — withdrawal of suit with leave to refile — costs ordinarily follow the event; indigence must be established or representation shown to be pro bono to justify waiving costs; origin as probate matter does not alter costs discretion.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Net judgment for defendant USD 1,104,445.60 after plaintiff’s proved set‑off; supplementary waiver void for uncertainty.
Contract law – sale of goods – performance and warranty – defective vehicles within warranty period – set‑off for maintenance and loss; Contract interpretation – uncertainty renders supplementary agreement and exchange‑rate valuation clause void and unenforceable; Remedies – netting/set‑off against undisputed principal; interest and damages refused where mutual breaches exist.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Where trial records are irretrievable, the court ordered release after considering the substantial term already served.
Criminal procedure – missing/irretrievable trial records – attempts to reconstruct – impact on appeals. Criminal appeals – remedial options where records unavailable – retrial versus discharge or release. Sentencing considerations – weight given to portion of sentence already served when deciding remedy for missing records. Court procedure – caution against casual orders that might encourage sabotage of court registries.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Appeal against damages dismissed; court upheld trial findings, quantum and proof of special damages.
Motor-vehicle accident; general damages — quantum and judicial discretion; special (specific) damages — requirement to plead and prove; duty of appellate court to review trial record and re-evaluate evidence; alleged failure to address framed issues; insurer liability (policy admitted).
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Conviction quashed where charge particulars were ambiguous and did not meet statutory requirements.
Criminal law — Charge particulars — Ambiguous/defective charge contrary to s.132 Criminal Procedure Act — Amendment that increases ambiguity does not cure defect — Conviction unsafe — Revisional powers (ss.372, 373(1)(a)) to quash conviction and set aside sentence.
|
29 October 2019 |
|
Court upheld conviction: victim's visual identification met Waziri criteria and prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Visual identification evidence – Waziri Amanj factors (time, proximity/familiarity, lighting, distinctive features/clothing) – Corroboration by police and family witness – Exhibit (machete) unproven as weapon yet identification sufficient – Appeal dismissed.
|
28 October 2019 |
|
Non-joinder of sellers in a land ownership dispute renders proceedings incompetent and judgment a nullity.
Land law — ownership dispute — non-joinder of necessary parties (sellers/allocating authority) — omission renders proceedings incompetent and judgment nullity — requirement to implead third parties in chain-of-title disputes.
|
28 October 2019 |
|
Applicant awarded interim maintenance and injunction to preserve matrimonial property pending the divorce proceedings.
Family law – Interim maintenance under section 115(1)(c) Law of Marriage Act – spouse entitled to maintenance during pendency of matrimonial proceedings. Child maintenance – duty under Law of the Child Act s.8 to provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care and education. Interim injunction – Atilio v. Mbowe test (serious question, probability of success, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) – preservation of matrimonial property pending suit. Restoration of personal effects and interim payment of school/medical expenses in matrimonial proceedings.
|
28 October 2019 |
|
Conviction overturned where identification was unreliable and a medical PF3 was improperly tendered, leading to acquittal.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification unreliable where alleged eye‑witness did not personally identify accused (hearsay).; Evidence – Expert report (PF3) – Medical examination report must be tendered by examining doctor; improper tendering by State Attorney leads to expungement.; Admissibility – Testimony relying on expunged exhibit is tainted and cannot support a conviction.; Proof – Failure to prove case beyond reasonable doubt requires quashing of conviction.
|
28 October 2019 |
|
Procedural failures in conducting a guilty plea and defective charge vitiated the conviction and sentence; appeal allowed.
Criminal procedure – Plea of guilty – Requirement to prepare, read, explain and have accused sign memorandum of agreed facts – Necessity to record accused’s admissions and enter formal conviction – Defective charge and failure to tender exhibits vitiate plea-based conviction – Appeal permissible on procedural irregularity.
|
28 October 2019 |
|
Failure to show a request for certified copies disqualifies section 19(2) exclusion, rendering the review time-barred and dismissed with costs.
Limitation of actions – review applications – section 19(2) Law of Limitation Act – exclusion of time spent obtaining copies requires an evidential request; absence of request disqualifies exclusion – inordinate delay and lack of diligence justify dismissal under section 3(1).
|
28 October 2019 |
|
Identification at night and admission of a cautioned statement without a voluntariness inquiry made the conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Visual identification – night-time identification requires particulars (source, intensity, distance) to exclude mistaken identity; failure renders identification unsafe. Criminal procedure – Cautioned/confessional statements – upon objection trial court must hold an inquiry (trial-within-trial) into voluntariness before admission. Evidence – prosecution must produce cogent, corroborated evidence before relying on identification or confessions to convict.
|
28 October 2019 |
|
Contradictory identification and unverified exhibits rendered the prosecution case unsafe; convictions quashed.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Weak and unreliable evidence; all possibilities of mistaken identity must be eliminated (Waziri Amani principle). Criminal procedure – Identification parade – Compliance with procedural safeguards and corroboration required. Evidence – Exhibits and seizure – Necessity of certificates of seizure and in-court identification for admitted exhibits. Burden of proof – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions favor accused.
|
28 October 2019 |
|
|
28 October 2019 |