|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2019 |
|
|
Omission to state statutory provision in conviction breaches mandatory section 312(2) CPA and cannot be cured under section 388.
Criminal procedure – Conviction formality – Section 312(2) CPA requires judgment to specify the offence and statutory section of conviction. Defect in conviction – Omission to state the law is mandatory and renders conviction incomplete. Section 388 CPA – Cannot be invoked to cure omission of mandatory elements of conviction under section 312(2). Remedy – Remit judgment to trial court to enter a proper conviction; appellant may file fresh appeal thereafter.
|
16 October 2019 |
|
Conviction omitted the statutory reference; judgment remitted for proper conviction as section 312(2) is mandatory.
Criminal procedure — Conviction must specify the offence and statutory provision — mandatory requirement of section 312(2) Criminal Procedure Act. Section 388 CPA — cannot cure omission of mandatory content required by section 312(2). Appeal — fundamental defect in recorded conviction warrants remittal to trial court for proper conviction before proceeding with substantive grounds. Evidence — absence of independent witness is not fatal where witness credibility can determine the case.
|
16 October 2019 |
|
Appeal struck out as incompetent because the notice of appeal was fatally defective (wrongly titled), with costs.
Criminal appeal — Notice of appeal — Wrongly titled/defective notice — Fundamental irregularity — Competence of appeal; Procedural rules — Importance despite overriding objectives; Pleadings — Parties bound by pleadings; Court declines to address merits where procedural defect fatal.
|
16 October 2019 |
|
Failure to record DLHT assessors’ opinions renders the tribunal’s proceedings and judgment a nullity, requiring retrial.
Land law/DLHT procedure – mandatory involvement of assessors – section 19(2) District Land and Housing Tribunal Regulations, 2003 – assessors’ opinions must be recorded in proceedings and judgment. Civil procedure – irregularity and nullity – failure to record assessors’ opinions renders DLHT proceedings and judgment a nullity. Appellate practice – court may entertain jurisdictional/point-of-law issues raised for first time in submissions where they affect validity of proceedings.
|
16 October 2019 |
|
Court granted extension of time to allow applicant to serve request for certified court records; hearing held ex parte.
Civil procedure – extension of time – application to enable service of request for certified copies of record – adequacy of reasons in affidavit. Civil procedure – ex parte hearing – respondent’s counsel absent and no counter-affidavit filed – hearing proceeded ex parte. Relief granted: extension of time; no order as to costs.
|
16 October 2019 |
|
Court granted extension of time to permit service of a request for certified copies after respondents failed to appear or file a response.
Civil procedure – Extension of time to effect service of documents – Applicant’s affidavit and oral submissions considered – Ex parte hearing where respondents’ counsel absented without cause – Failure to file counter-affidavit despite leave.
|
16 October 2019 |
|
A suit defective on its face for improper joinder and lack of representative authority is struck out with costs.
Civil procedure — Representative suit — requirement for leave/authority to represent a co-plaintiff; Misjoinder/non-joinder (Order I r.9) — not a cure for suits illegal on their face; Amendment of pleadings (Order VI r.17) — cannot pre-empt or cure clear facial irregularity after preliminary objection; Striking out — remedy for pleadings defective on their face.
|
16 October 2019 |
|
An out-of-time application must be dismissed under the Limitation Act, and the respondent who opposed it is entitled to costs.
Limitation of actions – application filed out of time – remedy under section 3(1) Law of Limitation Act is dismissal, not withdrawal – party who attends and files reply entitled to costs.
|
15 October 2019 |
|
Dismissal of an appeal without hearing for a curable procedural defect violated the right to be heard; appeal set aside.
Natural justice – right to be heard; appellate procedure – difference between dismissal and striking out; incompetent appeal – curable defect and refiling allowed; proper remedy where party condemned unheard.
|
15 October 2019 |
|
The appellants were denied a fair hearing; dismissal for misnumbering was improper and was set aside, allowing a fresh appeal.
Constitutional law – right to a fair hearing – Article 13(6)(a) – condemning a party unheard violates natural justice. Civil procedure – appellate jurisdiction – distinction between striking out an incompetent appeal and dismissing an appeal on the merits. Probate – appeal procedure – curable defects (wrong case number) should lead to strike out and opportunity to refile.
|
15 October 2019 |
|
Admission of prolonged loan default defeats injunction; creditor entitled to enforce mortgage security, injunction dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Interim injunction – Applicants’ admission of long‑standing loan default negates existence of serious triable issues; financial hardship alone not a defence to enforcement of mortgage security; irreparable harm and balance of convenience favour creditor enforcing secured debt.
|
15 October 2019 |
|
An appeal filed outside the statutory time and procedurally defective is a nullity; time limits are mandatory.
Civil procedure – Appeals from primary courts – statutory time limit under section 20(3) Magistrate Courts Act – mandatory and jurisdictional. Requirement to attach primary court judgment to petition – governed by GN No.312/1964. Article 107A(2)/overriding objective cannot cure non‑compliance with mandatory procedural provisions. High Court power under s.44(1) Magistrate Courts Act to quash nullity proceedings.
|
15 October 2019 |
|
Where an appeal lies or has been filed, the High Court will not exercise revisional jurisdiction; revision struck out.
Criminal procedure – Revision v Appeal – High Court cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction where a right of appeal exists and an appeal has been filed; revision is only available where no appeal lies.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Temporary injunction granted to restrain respondent from selling mortgaged home pending resolution of loan dispute.
Land law; temporary/interlocutory injunction; mortgage and loan dispute; prima facie case; irreparable injury (sale of sole residence); balance of convenience; Atilio v Mbowe and related authorities; adequacy of affidavit evidence at interlocutory stage.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Administrative complaints to judicial officers do not constitute sufficient cause to extend time for appeal.
Limitation – extension of time – good/sufficient cause – seeking administrative advice to judicial officers does not constitute good cause; court's discretion; promptness and lack of negligence required; layman status not an excuse.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Seeking administrative advice from judicial officers does not constitute sufficient cause to extend time for filing a revision.
Civil procedure – extension of time – discretion to enlarge time – requirement of "good" or "sufficient" cause; seeking administrative advice from judicial officers does not constitute sufficient cause. Limitation law – promptness, valid explanation and absence of negligence are key factors. Procedural rules – strict application to protect other litigants and judicial process integrity.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
A lodged appeal precludes High Court revisional intervention; revision is inappropriate where appeal is available.
Criminal procedure — Revisional jurisdiction vs. right of appeal — Where appeal exists, High Court should not exercise revision under s.372 Criminal Procedure Act. Revision is a remedy only where no statutory appeal is available. Withdrawal of revision after appeal lodged — revision struck out.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
The applicant failed to account for a year-long delay; extension of time to appeal was refused with costs.
Extension of time – requirement to account for delay; arrest and illness as grounds for extension; financial hardship and difficulty obtaining legal representation insufficient without satisfactory explanation; delay must be diligently explained or application will be refused.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove who caused grievous harm and trial court relied on suspicion.
Criminal law – Grievous harm – proof of injury established by medical report but requirement to prove unlawful causation and accused’s participation beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal – first appellate court entitled to reappraise evidence and draw its own inferences. Conviction must not be based on suspicion or assumptions. Compensation cannot be ordered on an acquitted count.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Conviction quashed where identity and causation were not proved and conviction rested on suspicion.
Criminal law – Grievous harm – Elements and proof – Identity/actus reus must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; conviction cannot rest on suspicion or assumptions; appellate reappraisal of evidence on first appeal; compensation cannot be ordered for acquitted count.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Application for letters of administration revoked dismissed for failure to file ordered written submissions and prosecute.
Civil procedure – failure to comply with court orders – failure to file written submissions – dismissal for want of prosecution – court’s duty to enforce rules.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
An unsigned or un‑thumbprinted will is invalid despite being witnessed; the applicant's appeal was dismissed.
Succession law – formalities of wills – requirement of signature or right thumb‑print under Rule 20, Local Customary Law (Declaration) Order, 1963 – witnessing before PCM insufficient to cure lack of signature/thumb‑print. Civil procedure – adducing evidence on appeal – calling witnesses at appeal stage requires good cause or court discretion in interests of justice. Intention of testator cannot validate a will that fails mandatory statutory formalities.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Applicant's revocation application dismissed for want of prosecution after failing to file court-ordered written submissions.
Probate law – application to revoke letters of administration – matter ordered on written submissions; failure to comply with court order. Civil procedure – non-compliance with court orders – failure to prosecute – dismissal for want of prosecution. Court control – duty to enforce rules of court and sanction parties who disobey procedural directions.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Extension of time refused where applicant failed to account for 45 days and showed no diligence in obtaining the ruling.
Law of Limitation — extension of time under s.14(1) — applicant must account for each day of delay, show diligence — technical delay vs actual delay — copy of ruling requested but not collected — negligence/apathy not sufficient cause.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Extension of time to appeal refused for failure to account for delay and lack of diligence.
Limitation of actions – extension of time under s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act – requirement to account for each day of delay – sufficient cause – diligence – failure to collect signed ruling – precedents including Lyamuya and analogous authorities.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Applicant granted leave to appeal but failed to prosecute it; revision application was incompetent and dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – competency of revision where leave to appeal out of time was granted – appeal is the proper remedy for appealable matters. Revision v appeal – revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute for an appeal when leave to appeal has been granted and not pursued. Execution proceedings – procedural challenge to execution should follow available appellate remedy. Plea in limine litis – preliminary objection upheld where application is incompetent.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Applicant granted leave to appeal but failed to appeal; revision against execution dismissed as incompetent.
Civil procedure — Revision v. Appeal — When leave to appeal has been granted, challenges to an appealable decision (including execution arising from it) must proceed by appeal; a party who fails to file an appeal cannot circumvent that remedy by seeking revision of execution orders.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
A fatally defective charge sheet that fails to disclose the offence renders the proceedings a nullity and quashes conviction.
Criminal law – Charge sheet – failure to specify correct subsection of Penal Code – particulars must disclose essential elements of offence. Criminal procedure – incurable defect – fatally defective charge cannot be cured under section 388; proceedings are a nullity. Appeal – where charge is incurably defective, no need to decide on merits of evidence or other grounds.
|
11 October 2019 |
|
Where the DPP validly objects under s.36(2), the court assesses certificate validity only and the bail application was dismissed.
Bail — DPP certificate under section 36(2) Economic and Organized Crime Control Act — validity test: written certification, prejudice to safety/interests of the Republic, relates to a criminal case pending trial or appeal — "pending trial" includes matters at subordinate court awaiting committal — court to assess certificate validity only, not bail merits — dismissal of bail application.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
Alleged illegality in a judgment can constitute sufficient cause to extend time to file review proceedings.
Civil procedure – extension of time under section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – allegation of illegality as sufficient cause to extend time; Appeals from ward tribunals – requirement to attach copies of lower tribunal judgment and decree; Review proceedings – discretion to reopen time limits where purported irregularity may have caused miscarriage of justice.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
Acquittal affirmed: prosecution failed to prove identity and actus reus; system records and receipts did not link respondent to theft.
Criminal law – Stealing by servant (s.271 Penal Code) – requirement to prove actus reus and identity beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence – identification of accused – suspicion from shared workplace insufficient to convict. Documentary evidence – system‑generated records and handwritten receipts – not self‑proving; require witness linkage. Witnesses – failure to call material witness (immediate supervisor/accountant) weakens prosecution case.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
Appeal dismissed where prosecution failed to prove identity and actus reus for stealing by servant; system records alone were insufficient.
Penal law – Stealing by servant (s.271 Penal Code) – elements: servant status, ownership/possession, actus reus and intention – proof of identity required. Evidence – documentary vs system-generated records – need for witness to explain records and link entries to accused. Evidence – failure to call material witnesses (accountant) weakens prosecution case. Standard of proof – prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion inadequate.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
Court granted extension to seek leave to appeal due to confusing decrees and applicant’s bereavement.
Appellate procedure – extension of time under s.5(1)(c) AJA – sufficient/good cause required – confusion from inconsistent decrees bearing same date – personal illness/bereavement as cause – discretionary relief granted.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
Plaintiff granted leave to withdraw and refile, but defendants awarded costs to be taxed by the District Registrar.
Civil Procedure – Withdrawal of suit with leave – Order XXIII of Civil Procedure Code – Distinction between withdrawal with permission (liberty to refile) and withdrawal without permission (preclusion to refile); Costs – award of costs where withdrawal with leave causes inconvenience and potential for fresh suit; Costs to be taxed by District Registrar.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
Plaintiff allowed to withdraw with liberty to refile; defendant awarded taxed costs for inconvenience.
Civil procedure – withdrawal of suit with leave to refile – plaintiff granted leave to withdraw but defendant entitled to costs – Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and court’s discretion to award costs.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
Conviction for theft of 28 sacks upheld; ten‑month sentence set aside and replaced with seven years or TZS 700,000 compensation.
Criminal law – Theft – Section 265 Penal Code – conviction for stealing 28 sacks of paddy upheld. Sentencing – statutory maximum under s.265 (up to seven years) – appellate court set aside inadequate ten‑month sentence and imposed seven years or compensation. Alternative order – compensation in lieu of imprisonment; credit for time served. Enforcement – order to deliver agreed sacks of paddy upheld; absent respondent to be arrested for sentence enforcement.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
Temporary injunction granted to restrain sale of disputed mortgaged property pending trial due to serious triable issues.
Land law – Mortgage and title – Lawfulness of mortgage securing foreign currency loan; Civil procedure – Temporary injunction – prima facie case, balance of convenience, preservation of status quo; Withholding certificate of title – triable issue.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
Leave granted for one applicant to file a representative suit under O.1 r.8 CPC to protect common interests.
Civil procedure — Representative actions — Order 1 Rule 8 CPC — Leave to sue on behalf of multiple persons with common interest — Appointment of a single representative — Ex parte grant where application unopposed.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
|
10 October 2019 |
|
A child’s unsworn testimony given without the statutory promise is of no evidential value and vitiates conviction.
Evidence – section 127(2) Evidence Act – child of tender age must promise to tell the truth before giving unsworn evidence – failure renders testimony of no evidential value. Criminal procedure – section 312(2) CPA – judgment must specify offence and statutory provision; omission is irregular but may be cured by section 388 if no failure of justice. Documentary evidence – PF3 (medical report) – failure to read aloud not necessarily prejudicial if contents are otherwise before court.
|
10 October 2019 |
|
Applicant charged with money laundering denied bail because the offence is statutorily non-bailable.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Non-bailable offences – Money laundering listed as non-bailable; DPP certificate unnecessary where statute bars bail; challenge to charge form inappropriate during committal proceedings; constitutional challenge to non-bailable status rejected.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Delay by the tribunal in supplying judgment copies constituted good cause to extend time to file an appeal; extension granted for 21 days.
Land law – extension of time – application for extension to file appeal – whether delay in supplying copies of judgment by tribunal constitutes good cause under Section 4(2) Land Disputes Courts Act (Cap. 216 R.E.2002). Civil procedure – diligence – effect of tribunal’s delay in providing judgment on exercise of right to appeal.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
The court marked the suit settled because the same land dispute had been finally adjudicated in a prior case.
Civil procedure – res judicata/related proceedings – where same land and parties were finally determined in prior Land Case, subsequent suit cannot be entertained; suit to be marked settled. Land law – title disputes – effect of earlier judgment declaring lawful ownership on subsequent proceedings. Case management – stay of proceedings pending outcome of related case to avoid conflicting decisions.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Claim dismissed/marked settled because the same land dispute was already finally adjudicated in an earlier case.
Land law – res judicata and prior adjudication; lis pendens/stay pending related proceedings; declaratory claims to cancel a survey plan barred where ownership of same land has been finally determined.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Appellate court convicted respondent for forgery on compelling circumstantial evidence, quashing his acquittal and imposing seven years' imprisonment.
Criminal law – Forgery – Elements: false document, authorship, intent to defraud – proof may rest on circumstantial evidence and possession; handwriting expert not always required. Circumstantial evidence – possession of documents and conduct can justify inference of authorship when alternative explanations are unreasonable. Uttering – requires proof who presented or submitted the forged document; mere filing records insufficient without identification. Appellate review – substitution of acquittal with conviction where evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Appellate court substituted conviction for forgery based on circumstantial evidence; uttering count not proved.
Criminal law — Forgery — Elements: false document; maker; intent to defraud — Handwriting expert not indispensable — Circumstantial evidence and possession can sustain conviction where it irresistibly points to guilt — Uttering false document requires proof of who uttered it — Appellate substitution of conviction for acquittal where evidence warrants.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Minor charge and recording defects do not vitiate conviction where child testimony and medical evidence prove penetration and guilt.
Criminal law – Charge-sheet defects – minor clerical or subsection errors salvaged if they do not occasion failure of justice (s.388 CPA). Evidence – Child witness voir dire – competency may be established even if questions not verbatim recorded where record shows understanding of duty to tell the truth. Sexual offences – Proof of penetration – slight penetration sufficient (s.130(4)(a)); colloquial descriptions of intercourse can be adequate when meaning is clear. Corroboration – Medical evidence (PF3) and clinical testimony can corroborate child testimony. Appellate review – Minor procedural omissions do not vitiate conviction where evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Leave granted under section 361(2) to file a Notice of Appeal out of time; applicant given 21 days to file.
Criminal procedure – extension of time – leave to file Notice of Appeal out of time under section 361(2) Criminal Procedure Act – affidavit evidence – absence of State objection – leave granted.
|
9 October 2019 |
|
Where statutory approval for a land disposition is lacking, a transferee has no transferable title and subsequent transfers are ineffective.
Land law – disposition and statutory approval – transfer inoperative without Commissioner’s approval; purchaser without vested title cannot transfer to third party; remedy against transferor for breach of contract, not against State where plaintiffs lack proprietary title.
|
9 October 2019 |