|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2019 |
|
|
The applicants cannot enforce registration where the vendor lacked statutory approval, rendering the disposition inoperative.
Land law – disposition of registered land – statutory approval required under the Land Act; disposition without approval is inoperative; transferable right vests only after approval and payment of premia/dues; purchaser’s remedy against vendor for breach of contract; refusal to approve administratively challenged but proprietary relief unavailable where transfer was incomplete.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Applicant’s non‑service and illegality claims failed to justify extension to set aside default judgment.
Civil procedure – Default judgment – Service of process – Whether defendant was validly served; Extension of time – Requirements for granting extension – Sufficient reasons and absence of dilatory conduct (Shanti v Shindocha); Illegality of judgment – When alleged illegality justifies extension; Order VIII r.14(1).
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed for failure to prove rape and victim’s age, file remitted for possible DNA testing.
* Criminal law – sufficiency of evidence – rape – requirement that prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt; single witness and lack of corroboration. * Criminal law – proof of age – necessity of birth certificate or parental evidence to establish victim is under 18 for schoolgirl impregnation offence. * Forensic evidence – role of DNA testing where medical evidence of pregnancy exists but identity/causation is unproven. * Remedies – quashing convictions and remitting file for further investigation where prosecution evidence is inadequate.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Court granted a six‑month temporary injunction preserving possession pending resolution despite weak prima facie proof, due to risk of irreparable harm.
Land — Temporary injunction — Atilio criteria (prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) — Registered land: title deed as prima facie proof of ownership — Auction pending may render suit nugatory.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Extension of time granted where misplaced court file and alleged jurisdictional illegality justified delay.
Extension of time – sufficient cause – misplacement/loss of court file and prompt follow‑up correspondence – dismissal for want of prosecution – alleged illegality at trial court as a special circumstance – Order IX Rule 9/Order XXXIX Rule 19 – judicial discretion.
|
8 October 2019 |
|
Extension granted where misplaced trial court file, prompt follow-up and alleged illegality constituted sufficient cause.
Limitation—section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act; Order XXXIX Rule 19 CPC; extension of time—sufficient cause; misplaced court file; promptness and diligence; apparent illegality/ jurisdictional usurpation; discretion to extend time.
|
8 October 2019 |
|
Amendment removed need for High Court leave in land appeals; application withdrawn with no order as to costs.
* Land law – Appeals – Misc. Amendment Act No. 3 of 2018 – Amended s.47 of the Land Disputes Courts Act removing requirement for High Court leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. * Civil procedure – Withdrawal of application – Unopposed withdrawal – No order as to costs.
|
8 October 2019 |
|
Applicant withdrew land appeal application after amendment removed High Court leave requirement; withdrawn with no order as to costs.
Land law — Appeal procedure — Section 47 Land Disputes Courts Act — Misc. Amendment Act No. 3 of 2018 — removal of High Court leave requirement — withdrawal of application — costs.
|
8 October 2019 |
|
A s72 revision is incompetent if filed beyond the sixty‑day Limitation Act period without leave or extension.
* Probate & Administration Act s72 – application for revision – limitation period.
* Law of Limitation Act (Cap. 89) Part III item 21 – sixty (60) days for revision applications.
* Preliminary objection – time‑bar – jurisdictional bar to entertaining an application without extension/leave.
* Procedural consequence – striking out a time‑barred application (as opposed to dismissal).
|
8 October 2019 |
|
Revision application struck out as time-barred for being filed beyond the 60-day statutory period without leave.
Civil procedure – Revision under section 72 Probate and Administration Act – Limitation period – Part III item 21 Law of Limitation Act (60 days) – Time-barred applications and jurisdiction – Failure to seek enlargement of time – Application struck out.
|
8 October 2019 |
|
Contempt requires clear service and proof beyond reasonable doubt; illegality can justify extension of time to appeal.
* Civil contempt — committal for disobedience — requirements: clear and unambiguous order; proper notice/ service; breach proved beyond reasonable doubt; burden on applicant. * Extension of time — discretionary relief — sufficient cause; applicant must account for each day of delay; arguable illegality of impugned decision can justify extension in interests of justice.
|
8 October 2019 |
|
Extension of time granted solely on the basis of a jurisdictional illegality despite unexplained delay.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Discretionary relief under Limitation Act s.14(1) – Applicant must account for each day of delay.
* Defective decree – Delay caused by correction of decree – Duty to show diligence and produce supporting evidence.
* Illegality – Jurisdictional defect may amount to sufficient cause; court may extend time in interest of justice.
|
8 October 2019 |
|
|
8 October 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to show triable issues, irreparable harm or favourable balance of convenience; temporary injunction refused.
Interlocutory injunction — principles: prima facie/triable issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience — bank loan repayment dispute — application for temporary injunction refused.
|
8 October 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to account for delay; extension of time refused and application dismissed with costs.
Extension of time — Law of Limitation Act s.14(1) — Requirement to account for each day of delay — Application of Lyamuya guidelines — Diligence versus apathy — Seeking legal assistance not automatically excusing delay.
|
8 October 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to account for delay; extension of time to appeal refused under Lyamuya principles.
* Limitation of actions – extension of time under section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – requirement to account for each day of delay; application of Lyamuya guidelines (accounting for delay, inordinate delay, diligence). * Procedural law – adequacy of reasons: late supply of judgment and status as layperson/need to find legal counsel not per se sufficient. * Discretionary relief – failure to show sufficient cause warrants dismissal with costs.
|
8 October 2019 |
|
Revision against an extradition decision struck out because the supporting affidavit was incurably defective and judicial review is appropriate.
Extradition — revisional jurisdiction where statute silent on appeal; Affidavit requirements — must state facts, not legal arguments or prayers; Preliminary objections — point of law must be pure to dispose of suit; Extradition orders by Minister are quasi-judicial and amenable to judicial review.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
Review dismissed: applicant showed no new evidence or apparent error and improperly sought to substitute review for an appeal.
* Civil procedure – Review – Scope limited to Order XLII(1)(b) grounds (new evidence, error apparent, fraud, denial of hearing, lack of jurisdiction).
* Civil procedure – Scheduling orders – Departure requires application under Order VIIA Rule 4; failure to apply renders scheduling lapse effective.
* Limitation – Part III item 21 of the Law of Limitation Act bars late applications to amend scheduling orders.
* Review is not a substitute for appeal; courts will exercise review sparingly to protect finality of litigation.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
Review dismissed: applicant failed to establish review grounds and cannot use review as an appeal substitute.
Civil procedure — Review under Order XLII(1)(b) — limited grounds (new evidence, apparent error, fraud, other sufficient reasons); Review is not an appeal; Scheduling orders/fast-track rules — requirement to apply timely to depart or amend; Limitation Act bars belated applications to amend scheduling orders; Finality of litigation — review to be exercised sparingly.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
Defective statutory citation in the charge rendered guilty pleas, conviction and sentence null for denying a fair trial.
Criminal procedure — Charge must disclose essential elements and correctly cite statute — Defective statutory citation renders plea/conviction void for denying fair trial rights; guilty plea does not cure incompetent charge.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
Applicant’s illness from a wild-animal attack constituted sufficient cause for an extension to file appeal documents.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time to file appeal under s.361(2) Criminal Procedure Act and s.4 Written Laws (Misc. Amendment) Act — Sickness/injury from wild animal attack as sufficient cause to justify delay — Court may grant specified shortened periods to file Notice and Memorandum of Appeal.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
Appeal allowed where prosecution failed to prove ownership/employee relationship, creating reasonable doubt on cattle theft charge.
* Criminal law – Theft of cattle – Burden and standard of proof – Requirement to prove ownership/relationship relied upon for identification.
* Evidence – Identification and admissions – Admissibility and sufficiency of alleged confession and conduct when ownership not established.
* Procedure – Effect of defects in seizure/inventory and absence of documentary proof or guest-book entries on safe conviction.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove a crucial employer–employee relationship, undermining proof beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Cattle theft – Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Necessity to prove material facts such as ownership/relationship claimed by prosecution – Failure to prove such material fact renders conviction unsafe.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
Respondent's failure to file a counter-affidavit justified granting an unopposed stay of execution pending appeal.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution/temporary injunction pending appeal – Respondent's failure to file counter‑affidavit treated as lack of opposition – Court may grant unopposed relief.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
Applicant’s revision dismissed: identities known, one improper attachment but garnishee lifted, breakdown order lawful and enforceable.
* Civil procedure – execution proceedings – representative suit – identities of ‘others’ must be disclosed and known; estoppel prevents late objections.* Execution – attachment and garnishee nisi – orders must correctly identify accounts; improper attachment may be remedied if garnishee lifted.* Res judicata – administrative/conciliation decisions do not necessarily bar execution of distinct monetary claims; trial court may require proof of payments.* Court orders – direction to provide payment breakdown is lawful, necessary to prevent double payment, and enforceable (non‑compliance may amount to contempt).
|
7 October 2019 |
|
Applicant's revision dismissed; court upheld requirement to produce payment breakdown and found procedural errors in account attachment.
* Civil procedure – representative suit – identities of represented claimants must be known; estoppel where party previously acknowledged identities/payments. * Execution – attachment and garnishee orders – must conform to the specific accounts ordered; wrongful attachment can be unwarranted. * Res judicata – CMA decision did not finally determine all claims; execution proceedings not barred. * Court orders – duty to produce payment breakdown to prevent double payment; non‑compliance may attract contempt.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
Conviction quashed where co-accused cautioned statements were admitted without inquiry and lacked corroboration.
Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned statements – mandatory inquiry into voluntariness when objection raised – confessions by co-accused require independent corroboration (s.33(2) Evidence Act) – conviction must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
An affidavit whose jurat omits how the deponent was identified is defective and will render the supported application struck out.
Affidavit jurat — Identification by Commissioner for Oaths — Jurat must state whether deponent personally known or identified to Commissioner — Defective jurat renders affidavit inadmissible — Application struck out — No costs where application drawn gratis.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
A defective jurat (failure to verify deponent's identity) renders the supporting affidavit incompetent and the application is struck out.
• Affidavit jurat — identity of deponent — Commissioner for Oaths must state whether he personally knows the deponent or was shown the deponent by a person known to him.
• Affidavit verification — absence of proper verification renders affidavit defective and inadmissible.
• Civil procedure — preliminary objection — defective supporting affidavit warrants striking out the application.
• Extension of time — application for extension supported by defective affidavit is incompetent.
|
7 October 2019 |
|
The applicant failed to prove a binding generator rental contract; claim dismissed and non-party respondents not liable under privity.
Contract law — proposal vs binding agreement; essential elements of contract (offer/acceptance, parties, commencement/duration); burden of proof in civil (ex parte) proceedings — balance of probabilities; privity of contract — non-parties not liable on contract obligations.
|
4 October 2019 |
|
The applicant failed to prove a binding rental contract from a proposal; the claim was dismissed.
Contract formation — Proposal vs binding contract; essential elements (offer, acceptance, commencement, duration, intention); Burden of proof in ex parte proceedings — balance of probabilities and ss.110–111 Evidence Act; Privity of contract — non-parties not liable absent independent cause of action; Reliefs — claim dismissed for want of merit.
|
4 October 2019 |
|
Conviction unsafe where eyewitness identification was unreliable and key documentary exhibit was improperly admitted.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – necessity for watertight identification, identification parade and description of light, proximity and observation time for night identifications. * Evidence – improper admission of documentary exhibit; expunction of exhibit admitted without proper testing. * Proof beyond reasonable doubt – insufficiency where both identification and documentary proof of property are defective. * Law of Evidence Act, s.100 – written documents cannot be displaced by oral evidence.
|
4 October 2019 |
|
Court restored a dismissed matrimonial appeal after finding sufficient cause to extend time and set aside the dismissal.
* Civil Procedure — Order XXXIX, Rule 19 — setting aside dismissal for want of prosecution — restoration of appeal where applicant prevented by sufficient cause.
* Limitation — s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act — extension of time — technical reasons can constitute sufficient cause.
* Procedure — ex parte hearing permissible where respondent refutes service; court may decide on applicant’s affidavit evidence.
|
4 October 2019 |
|
High Court quashed lower courts’ distribution of matrimonial property and ordered retrial for lack of statutory grounds and evidence.
* Family law – Matrimonial property – Division or sale of assets acquired during marriage – Section 114(1) Law of Marriage Act (Cap 29 R.E.2002).
* Family law – Grounds for divorce – Requirement of evidence under sections 107(1) and (2) Law of Marriage Act.
* Civil procedure – Irregular proceedings and absence of requisite evidence – Quashing of lower courts’ proceedings and order for retrial de novo.
|
4 October 2019 |
|
Court quashed awards of the matrimonial home to children and ordered retrial for failure to follow statutory division and divorce rules.
* Family law – Division of matrimonial property – Applicability of s114(1) Law of Marriage Act – assets acquired by joint efforts are to be divided between spouses, not bequeathed to children who did not contribute; * Family law – Divorce procedure – Requirement to plead and prove statutory grounds under s107 of the Law of Marriage Act; * Procedure – Irregular proceedings and defective record justify quashing and retrial de novo.
|
4 October 2019 |
|
Appeal struck out for incompetence due to inconsistent/non‑existent case references and failure to attach impugned ruling.
Land law and civil procedure – appeal competency – requirement to correctly identify impugned decision and attach ruling/decree – consequences of referring to non-existent case numbers – application to set aside ex parte judgment – time limits (Order IX Rule 13(2)) and procedural compliance (Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC).
|
4 October 2019 |
|
Court grants extension of time where delay resulted from trial court’s failure to supply ruling and drawn order.
Limitation Act s.14(1) – extension of time – discretion of the court – requirement of sufficient cause – delay in supplying copies of ruling/drawn order by court constitutes sufficient cause.
|
4 October 2019 |
|
Interim injunction extended for four months to maintain status quo pending resolution of ownership and rent dispute.
Land law – interim injunction – extension under Order XXXVII Rule 3; criteria: aggregate time limit, applicant’s diligence, interest of justice; AtHio v Mbowe principles; maintenance of status quo pending main suit; dispute over occupation and unpaid rent.
|
4 October 2019 |
|
Applicants granted bail under EOCCA subject to bond, sureties, passport surrender and court approval.
Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act — Bail — Exercise of judicial discretion under ss. 36(5) and 36(6); conditions of bail; sureties; surrender of travel documents; court approval of sureties.
|
3 October 2019 |
|
Sufficient lighting and a properly conducted identification parade upheld reliable visual identification, so the appellants’ convictions were sustained.
Criminal law – Visual identification – requirement to describe source and intensity of light; Identification parade – compliance with PGO 132; Corroboration of identification evidence; Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
3 October 2019 |
|
Whether visual identification and a PGO 132-compliant parade proved the respondent’s case beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Identification – Visual identification at scene aided by artificial light – adequacy and description of light. * Criminal procedure – Identification parade – compliance with PGO 132 and admissibility of identification parade register. * Evidence – corroboration and assessment of witness credibility – standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
3 October 2019 |
|
Applicant found re-engaged after 2016 retrenchment and unfairly terminated in 2018; CMA award set aside and limited compensation awarded.
Labour law – retrenchment – existence and timing of retrenchment; continuation/re-employment after retrenchment – statutory presumption of employment (s.61 LIA); time-bar for challenging retrenchment (30-day rule) and condonation; unfair termination for lack of fair procedure; assessment of contradictory witness evidence.
|
3 October 2019 |
|
A prima facie name/trademark dispute existed, but no irreparable harm shown, so interim injunction was refused.
* Trade mark/company name dispute — application for interim injunction to restrain use of similar name pending trial
* Interlocutory injunction requirements — prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience
* Prima facie case found, but irreparable harm not established; balance of convenience favours registered company
* Discretion to grant injunction refused where adequacy of damages and hardship to respondent outweigh applicants’ claim
|
3 October 2019 |
|
Whether bail is permissible for applicants charged with unlawful possession of government trophies and on what security and surety conditions.
Criminal procedure — Bail pending trial — Economic offences involving property exceeding Tshs.10,000,000 — Application of s.36(5)(a) EOCCA (as amended) — Requirement of bond or deposit and acceptable proof of immovable property/title deed — Conditions for sureties, travel restrictions, surrender of travel documents, and court attendance.
|
3 October 2019 |
|
An appellant who withdraws an appeal after respondents have appeared is liable to pay respondents' costs.
Civil procedure – Withdrawal of appeal – Costs – Where appellant withdraws an appeal after respondents have entered appearance and incurred costs, the withdrawing appellant may be ordered to pay respondents’ costs.
|
3 October 2019 |
|
The applicant's withdrawal of the appeal requires the applicant to pay the respondents' costs.
Civil procedure – Withdrawal of appeal – Entitlement to costs – Where appellant withdraws appeal after respondents entered appearance, costs follow party who caused appearance; conduct of parties relevant to costs order.
|
3 October 2019 |
|
Court ordered written determination of preliminary objections before addressing the petition’s merits to preserve proper record.
Arbitration Rules (GN No. 427/1957) – Rule 6 (title) and Rule 8 (annexures) – Procedural defects; Preliminary points of objection – must be decided before merits; Court’s discretion to order written hearing to preserve record.
|
3 October 2019 |
|
Preliminary objections must be pure points of law; reliance on annexures converts them into merits and requires trial, not dismissal.
Land law – jurisdiction of land tribunal; Civil procedure – preliminary objection must be a pure point of law and not depend on annexures or disputed facts; Procedural irregularity – improper reliance on documentary annexures and dismissal where striking out was appropriate; Appeal – quashing of tribunal ruling and remitting for trial on merits.
|
2 October 2019 |
|
Applicants charged in high-value EOCCA offences granted bail subject to half-value cash deposit, bonds, surrender of IDs, monthly appearances, and movement restrictions.
Bail — Economic and Organized Crime Control Act (Cap.200) — section 36(5) mandatory conditions where alleged property value exceeds TShs.10,000,000 — half-value cash deposit and bond for balance — surrender of travel documents and movement restrictions — presumption of innocence and constitutional right to bail.
|
2 October 2019 |
|
Bail denied where money laundering charged under EOCA remains non-bailable under the CPA.
* Criminal procedure – Bail – Money laundering charged under EOCA – Applicability of CPA s.4(2) and s.148(5)(a)(iv) – Non-bailable offence where no express provision to the contrary. * Precedent – Later Court of Appeal decision (Rugemalira) prevails over earlier inconsistent authority.
|
2 October 2019 |