|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2020 |
|
|
Application for extension to file review dismissed for failure to account for inordinate delay and each day's delay.
Extension of time – Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – applicant must account for each day of delay; Lyamuya and Bushiri principles apply; merits of intended review relevant but cannot substitute for sufficient reasons for delay.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Appeal was not time-barred: 60-day limitation applies and time runs from when copy of judgment is availed; preliminary objection dismissed.
Civil procedure – appeals – limitation period for appeals to High Court under section 38(1) Land Disputes Courts Act – sixty (60) days. Limitation law – commencement of time – section 19(2) Law of Limitation Act: time runs from when copy of judgment is availed. Preliminary objection – time bar – dismissal where appeal filed within prescribed period.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Court allowed extension to appeal despite short unexplained delay because a possible illegality (res judicata/misidentified land) existed.
Practice — Extension of time — Applicant must account for each day of delay; unexplained delay is ordinarily fatal — Illegality — Alleged misapplication of res judicata due to confusion over identity of disputed land may justify extension — Discretion to allow appeal to resolve potential illegality rather than leave possibly tainted tribunal record.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Applicant's long unexplained delay and lack of diligence warranted refusal of extension of time to set aside ex-parte judgment.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Application under s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act – Applicant must account for each day of delay and show diligence. Ex-parte judgment – Setting aside – Delay caused by negligence or failure to follow up with counsel is insufficient to justify extension.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Applicant failed to account for nearly three-year delay; extension of time to set aside ex parte judgment refused.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – Requirement to account for each day of delay – Diligence and absence of negligence required to set aside ex parte judgment.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Court granted extension to file revision in probate matter, finding sufficient cause and special circumstances.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Sufficient cause and exercise of judicial discretion — Accounting for delay versus special circumstances — Probate matters and prevention of injustice.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Court granted 14-day extension to file revision in probate matter, finding special circumstances and sufficient diligence.
Extension of time – discretion and 'sufficient cause' – Mumello v Bank of Tanzania; Accounting for delay – requirement to account each day but special circumstances may justify extension – Aluminium Africa Ltd; Probate proceedings – protection of beneficiaries' rights as factor in exercising discretion; Applications to extend time – balance between procedural diligence and substantive justice.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Failure to attach the decree and using the wrong appeal form are fatal; appeal struck out, no costs for lay appellant.
Civil procedure — Appeal — Requirement under Order XXXIX R.1(1) to accompany memorandum of appeal with copy of decree — Form of appeal from original jurisdiction (memorandum vs petition) — Defects fatal to appeal; strike out.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Applicant blamed unauthorized registrar‑initiated mediation for delay; court held extension applications need sufficient cause and mediation was improper.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Discretionary relief – Must show sufficient cause. Remedies – Appeal, review, revision are statutory remedies; parties should not rely on non‑court mediation. Administrative action – Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies lacks judicial power to initiate court‑affecting mediation; such intervention is an abuse of power. Delay excuse – Unauthorized mediation by external official may be causal but does not automatically validate delay without proper legal basis.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Court appointed a next friend for a person of unsound mind to facilitate adoption proceedings.
Civil procedure — Appointment of next friend for a person of unsound mind; Order XXXI r.1, r.4, r.15 CPC; Persons with Disabilities Act 2010; GN No.110/2019 (vulnerable groups rules); adoption proceedings.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Appeal against an execution-stage ruling dismissed as time-barred for non-compliance with the sixty-day statutory limit.
Land Disputes Courts Act, s.38 – statutory sixty-day limitation for appeals – compliance required for competence of appeal. Appeals against rulings made in execution of decrees – competency affected by whether earlier revision decisions were appealed. Effect of failure to appeal a tribunal's decision – unchallenged decisions remain binding and undermine subsequent related appeals.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
An appeal from a primary court to the Court of Appeal requires a High Court certificate on a point of law, not leave.
Criminal procedure – Appeal from primary court – Requirement of High Court certificate under section 6(7)(b) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Leave to appeal not substitute for certificate – Procedural competence of third appeals.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Labour revision struck out for being filed outside the six‑week statutory period without an extension.
Labour law – Revision of arbitration award – Time limit under section 91 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act – Effect of striking out for non‑compliance with Labour Court Rules (Rule 24(3)(c),(d)) – Requirement to apply for extension of time where revision filed after six weeks.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution with costs due to appellants' prolonged failure to prosecute.
Civil procedure — dismissal for want of prosecution — prolonged inaction by appellant — adjournment inappropriate — costs awarded.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
High Court grants bail where District Court lacks bail jurisdiction, imposing strict surety and travel conditions.
Criminal procedure – bail – High Court jurisdiction to grant bail where trial District Court lacks jurisdiction – Organized Crime Control Act and Criminal Procedure Act. Bail considerations – constitutional right to bail, bailable offences, absence of flight risk, uncontroverted affidavit. Bail conditions – monetary bond, sureties with immovable property, surrender of travel documents, local travel restrictions, court oversight.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Failure to receive a primary court judgment does not justify extension of time absent a pleaded, apparent illegality.
Civil procedure – extension of time – appeals from Primary Court to District Court – Rule 4 GN 312/1964: copy of Primary Court judgment not a condition precedent to filing appeal. Extension of time – illegality as ground – must be apparent on the face of the record and pleaded (Valambhia; Lyamuya). Procedural law – adequacy of affidavit and pleadings in applications for enlargement of time.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
A default judgment entered on defective summons and flawed proof of service is nullified; retrial ordered.
Civil procedure – Default judgment – Requirements of Order VIII, rule 14 for claims exceeding Tshs 1,000 – necessity of fixing date for ex parte proof; Proof of service – compliance with Order V, rule 16 and adequacy of affidavit of service; Defective summons (summons for hearing/appeal) – lack of requirement to file defence; Magistrates' Courts Act s.43(1)(b) – suo motu revision to quash proceedings that are a nullity; Right to be heard – denial through ineffective service.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Court granted extension of time to defend a summary land suit, ordering filing of Written Statement of Defence within 21 days.
Civil procedure – extension of time – application under s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act – sufficient and reasonable grounds required. Summary procedure – Order XXXV Civil Procedure Code – procedure for summoning defendant and application for leave to defend; written statement of defence not summoned for summary suits. Legal professional error – counsel’s negligence distinguished from cases of inaction; not automatically fatal to extension application.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Acquittal where toxicology showed poison but circumstantial evidence failed to link the accused to administering it.
Criminal law – murder – elements: death, unlawfulness, malice aforethought and causation. Circumstantial evidence – proofs and tests: each link must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence. Forensic evidence – toxicology showing poisonous substances does not, without more, identify perpetrator or quantify causative dose. Chain of custody – integrity of exhibits crucial where conviction rests on forensic analysis.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Accused who fatally stabbed wife's lover convicted of manslaughter due to provocation, not murder.
Criminal law – murder v. manslaughter – malice aforethought and its inference from weapon, force, injuries and conduct Defence of provocation/heat of passion – effect of finding spouse in flagrante delicto Evidence – unopposed post-mortem report and eyewitness testimony establishing unlawful killing Assessors’ opinion – majority view accepted reducing charge to manslaughter
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Appeal dismissed: objector must adduce evidence in objection proceedings; respondents not obliged to testify.
Civil procedure – Objection proceedings – Miscellaneous application not a suit, no requirement to frame issues; Evidence – Objection proceedings: objector must adduce evidence (Civ. Proc. Act ss.57–58); Right to cross‑examination – respondents not obliged to testify; Documentary evidence – sale agreement considered; Locus standi – properly assessed.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Filing a memorandum instead of the statutory petition for a second appeal renders the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Land law — Appeals — Requirement under s.38(2) Land Disputes Courts Act for petition of appeal to High Court from District Land and Housing Tribunal in appellate/revisional jurisdiction. Civil procedure — Distinction between memorandum of appeal (first appeal/original jurisdiction) and petition of appeal (second/appellate or revisional jurisdiction). Procedural mandatory requirements — "shall" denotes mandatory compliance; substantial compliance and overriding-objective/constitutional doctrines cannot circumvent mandatory procedural provisions.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Concurrent findings on boundaries and possession upheld; appellant failed to prove adverse possession or superior title.
Land law — boundary disputes and ownership — proof of boundaries; adverse possession/limitation — weight and credibility of witness evidence; appellate review of concurrent tribunal findings.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Failure to account for each day and lack of evidence meant extension of time to appeal was refused.
Extension of time – Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act and Section 95 CPC – requirement to account for each day of delay – advocate’s negligence not sufficient cause – alleged illegality must be apparent on the face of the record to constitute sufficient cause.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Pecuniary jurisdiction is governed by the cause of action's monetary value, not claimed general or punitive damages.
• Civil procedure – pecuniary jurisdiction determined by value of subject matter/cause of action; • Negotiable instrument – value of cheque (TShs 4,000,000) governs jurisdictional assessment; • General and punitive damages are assessed by the court and do not determine pecuniary jurisdiction; • Magistrates’ Court Act s.40(2)(b) and Civil Procedure Code s.13 applied.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Extension of time to appeal refused for failure to account for delay and lack of sufficient cause.
Land appeal — extension of time under s.11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — need to show sufficient cause, account for each day of delay, act expeditiously and in good faith; being unrepresented or advocate error not sufficient; alleged illegality must be demonstrated.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Denial of cross-examination and inadequate appellate re-evaluation caused prejudice, prompting quashing of proceedings and retrial.
Civil procedure — Right to cross-examine — Mandatory nature of Rule 47(2), Civil Procedure of Primary Court — Failure to allow cross-examination may occasion miscarriage of justice; Appellate re-evaluation — duty of first appellate court to re-appraise evidence (Pandya principle); Admission of exhibits — necessity of clear record on who admitted and identity of witnesses/signatories; Relief — nullification of proceedings and retrial de novo where prejudice shown.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Application for stay of execution dismissed for want of prosecution due to failure to file supporting submissions.
Labour law – stay of enforcement (s.91(3) ELRA) – procedural competence – written submissions must support the relief sought – failure to prosecute – dismissal for want of prosecution.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Failure to record/consider assessors' written opinions and irregular change of assessors vitiates Tribunal proceedings; retrial ordered.
Land Disputes Courts Act (ss.23, 24) and Regulation 19 GN.174/2003 – assessors’ active participation – written and recorded opinions – change/replacement of assessors during trial – procedural irregularity vitiating Tribunal proceedings – retrial ordered.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Execution may proceed absent a stay order despite a pending extension application; appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil Procedure — Execution of decrees — Whether a pending application for extension of time to appeal operates as a stay of execution — Order XXXIX, r.5, Civil Procedure Code (stay ordinarily by court which passed decree). Land law — Enforcement of judgment in land disputes — Competence of tribunal to grant execution absent a stay order.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
An appeal against a striking-out order with leave to re-file for statutory non-compliance is premature and non-appealable.
Civil procedure – striking out with leave to re-file; non-compliance with mandatory statutory notice (s.106(1) LG(U)A Cap.288); appealability – orders granting leave to re-file are not immediately appealable; appellate competence; costs to follow event.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Appellate court reversed tribunal for failing to evaluate evidence and declared appellant owner; temporary licence terminated on grant of title.
Land law – dispute over ownership of municipal plot; title deed and transfer documents vs temporary licence; trial tribunal’s failure to evaluate evidence; appellate review; entitlement to alternative land and eviction.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Unexplained magistrate retake, defective personation particulars, and improperly tendered exhibits rendered convictions unsafe.
Criminal procedure – magistrate’s recusal and reassignment – section 214(1) CPA; defective particulars in charge sheet – personation count; admissibility of documentary exhibits – maker must be called and contents read; adverse inference where prosecution fails to call material witnesses; retrial discretionary where prosecution case defective.
|
13 March 2020 |
|
Application dismissed for want of prosecution due to applicant’s and advocate’s repeated non-appearance.
Criminal procedure – dismissal for want of prosecution – repeated non-appearance by applicant or advocate justifies dismissal. Court procedure – consequences of failure to prosecute despite initial appearance. Certificate of Urgency – does not protect an application from dismissal where it is not prosecuted.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
Applicant's trademark claims dismissed for lack of similarity, valid respondent registration, and unproven damages.
Trade marks — similarity of composite marks — anti-dissection and global appreciation; Registration — certificate as prima facie evidence; Infringement — likelihood of confusion; Passing off — requirement to prove goodwill, misrepresentation and damages; Special damages — must be specifically pleaded and proved.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
An omnibus application combining extension of time and multiple revisions is incompetent and struck out; costs awarded.
Civil procedure — Omnibus application — Combining distinct reliefs (extension of time and multiple revision applications) — Incompetency and striking out. Limitation — Extension of time — Court cannot grant retrospective extension to validate already-filed out-of-time revisions. Multiplicity of proceedings — Separate applications required for distinct decisions.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
Applicant granted 20 days to file a late notice of appeal after court found sufficient reasons and no opposition.
Criminal Procedure Act, s.361(2) – extension of time – leave to file Notice of Appeal out of time – sufficiency of affidavit reasons – uncontested application.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
Conviction for stealing upheld but sentence reduced because subordinate magistrate exceeded sentencing jurisdiction.
Criminal appeal — stealing — new issues not raised at trial inadmissible on appeal; minor charge-sheet date discrepancies immaterial; possession of stolen goods vs. gift; conviction upheld; sentencing jurisdiction — subordinate magistrate limited to five years; sentence reduced.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
Applicant granted extension to appeal due to delayed supply of certified judgment and arguable jurisdictional illegality.
Extension of time – Law of Limitation Act s.14(1) – accounting for delay – diligence – supply of certified judgment copies – arguable illegality/ jurisdiction – application of Lyamuya guidelines.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
Conviction for obtaining advantage quashed where prosecution relied on hearsay and contradictory evidence, creating reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Corruption (obtaining an advantage) – Evidence – reliance on hearsay and absent witnesses; Contradictory documentary and oral evidence (pregnancy test reports) – standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – conviction quashed.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
An injunction application fails where the underlying suit has been dismissed, leaving no basis for interlocutory relief.
Civil procedure — Temporary injunctions — Order XXXVII requires existence of a pending suit — Dismissal of main suit removes foundation for interlocutory relief — Application struck out.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
An application to amend a plaint is incompetent and liable to be struck out once the underlying suit has been dismissed.
Civil procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Application to amend plaint – Incompetent where underlying suit has been dismissed – Strike out for lack of legal basis.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
Extension to file revision denied for failure to show good cause and absence of record‑apparent illegality.
Law of Limitation Act s.14(1) — extension of time; requirement of good and sufficient cause/diligence; alleged illegality — must be apparent on the face of the record; inordinate delay — consequences.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
Omission to record assessors' opinions renders DLHT proceedings a nullity and justifies retrial; each party bears own costs.
Land Disputes Courts – composition and procedure – requirement that DLHT be constituted by chairman and not less than two assessors – assessors must give opinion before chairman delivers judgment (s.23(1),(2) Land Disputes Courts Act; Reg.19(2) Regulations 2003). Civil procedure – procedural irregularity – omission to record/include assessors' opinions – renders proceedings and judgment a nullity. Remedy – proceedings nullified, judgment set aside, matter remitted for trial de novo. Costs – each party to bear own costs where tribunal's procedural failure caused remittal.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
Accused acquitted where visual identification and cautioned statements were unreliable and prosecution failed to prove guilt.
Criminal law – murder – proof of unlawful killing and malice aforethought – post mortem corroboration. Evidence – cautioned/confessional statements – voluntariness and requirement to repeat before a Justice of the Peace. Evidence – visual identification at night – need to eliminate all possibilities of mistaken identity; requirement for prior description or contemporaneous naming. Evidence – failure to tender exhibits (weapons) and omission to call key witnesses weakens prosecution case; onus to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
12 March 2020 |
|
Restoration application struck out because supporting affidavit failed to disclose source of information.
Civil procedure — Application for restoration — Affidavit verification — Requirement to disclose source of information — Failure renders affidavit defective (see Lalago Cotton Ginnery v LART) — Application declared incompetent and struck out — Costs: each party to bear own costs.
|
11 March 2020 |
|
Failure to file court-ordered written submissions amounted to want of prosecution; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – written submissions – filing deadlines; written submissions equivalent to hearing; want of prosecution; dismissal for non-compliance with court orders; late submissions without leave disregarded; costs awarded.
|
11 March 2020 |
|
A tribunal’s internally inconsistent judgment that fails to state who prevailed and reasons is a nullity; rehearing ordered.
Civil procedure – Requirements of a judgment – Judgment must contain concise statement of the case, points for determination, decision and reasons (Order XX r.4 CPC). Land disputes – Role of assessors – Chairman must consider assessors’ opinions and give reasons if differing (s.24 Land Disputes Courts Act). Judgment – Internal inconsistency and failure to declare the prevailing party render a judgment a nullity; remedy is rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.
|
11 March 2020 |
|
|
11 March 2020 |
|
|
11 March 2020 |