|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2025 |
|
|
A tribunal must give adequate reasons when denying costs; appellate court awarded costs where respondent’s deficient pleadings caused expense.
* Civil procedure – Costs – general rule that costs follow the event; discretion must be exercised judicially and with reasons.
* Land Dispute Courts – Regulation 21 grants tribunal discretion on costs but does not obviate need for adequate reasons when refusing costs.
* Preliminary objections – respondent’s failure to describe land properly may justify awarding costs to successful preliminary objector.
* Judicial review of discretionary orders – appellate interference where tribunal misdirects itself or fails to consider relevant matters.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
|
6 November 2025 |
|
Rape conviction quashed due to material variance, core contradictions, and failure to evaluate defence evidence.
Criminal law – Rape – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Contradictions touching the root of the case; Material variance between charge and evidence – identification and number of incidents; Duty to amend charge (s.251(1) CPA) and to evaluate defence evidence.
|
6 November 2025 |
|
A defamation claim fails where core allegations are true and claimed damages are unsubstantiated.
Defamation – elements: defamatory statement, publication, falsity and damage; Truth as defence; Burden to substantiate special damages and reputational harm; Ex parte hearing confirming publication but not falsity.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
Court granted extension to file appeal, finding the delay technical (due to an incompetent appeal) and delegating illegality issues to the Court of Appeal.
Extension of time – Law of Limitation Act s.14(1); technical delay vs actual delay; incompetent appeal; negligence relates to competence not timing; illegality apparent on face of record; factors for discretionary extension (promptness, diligence, explanation); authorities: Fortunatus Masha, Mbongo v Shah, Lyamuya Construction.
|
4 November 2025 |
|
Conviction overturned where lack of interpreter, custody defects and witness contradictions undermined proof beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal procedure – right to be heard – requirement to provide interpreter where accused does not understand court language.
* Evidence – burden of proof – contradictions in prosecution witnesses and failure to prove ownership/connection create reasonable doubt.
* Evidence custody – compliance with P.G.O. No. 229 and chain of custody requirements for exhibits.
* Arrest procedure – requirement to bring accused before court within statutory period under s.33(1) CPA.
|
4 November 2025 |
| October 2025 |
|
|
Assessors' opinions must be recorded and read; clerical errors alone do not vitiate tribunal proceedings.
* Land procedure – Assessors – Requirement that assessors participate and their opinions be recorded and read before judgment – failure to do so vitiates proceedings unless opinions are shown in record and read in court.
* Evidence – Civil standard – Evaluation on balance of probabilities; appellate intervention limited absent misapprehension of evidence.
* Locus in quo – Discretionary inspection; necessary only when physical features or boundaries are determinative.
* Record keeping – Clerical or typographical errors in day-to-day proceedings do not invalidate proceedings absent prejudice or miscarriage of justice.
|
30 October 2025 |
|
An application to set aside an ex parte DLHT decree must be filed within 30 days under Item 5, not 60 days.
* Civil procedure – Application to set aside ex parte decree – Order IX r.9 Civil Procedure Code – applicable to District Land and Housing Tribunal where lacuna exists under Land Disputes Courts Act.
* Limitation – Law of Limitation Act, Part III Schedule, Item 5 – thirty days for applications under Civil Procedure Code to set aside ex parte decree.
* Statutory interpretation – specific provision (Item 5) displaces general provision (Item 21) where the subject is expressly covered.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
A fresh ownership suit was barred because a prior Ward Tribunal decision on ownership remained intact; appeal dismissed.
* Limitation — Section 19(2) Law of Limitation Act — time to obtain certified copy excluded in computing appeal period.
* Natural justice — right to be heard — party status and knowledge of proceedings.
* Civil procedure — Order XXI Rule 64 CPC — effect of objection proceedings not decided on merits.
* Res judicata/finality — prior Ward Tribunal decision on ownership precludes relitigation; tribunal lacking jurisdiction to entertain fresh suit.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Court granted extension to file appeal due to apparent jurisdictional illegality despite unexplained delay.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Applicant must account for all days of delay; delay must not be inordinate; applicant must show diligence – Lyamuya principles.
* Extension of time – Illegality apparent on the face of the record, including jurisdictional defects, can constitute sufficient cause to extend time.
* Land law – Jurisdiction – Determination of land disputes is primarily vested in Land Disputes Courts under the Land Disputes Courts Act.
* Evidence – Annexures to an affidavit form part of the affidavit and may demonstrate apparent illegality.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Failure to obtain and read assessors' written opinions vitiates tribunal proceedings and requires retrial.
* Land law – role of assessors – assessors must participate and deliver written opinions to be read before parties; omission vitiates proceedings.
* Civil procedure – procedural irregularity – failure to obtain/read assessors' opinions amounts to miscarriage of justice and nullity.
* Evidence – reading of exhibits – failure to read exhibits aloud not fatal where parties had prior access; prejudice must be shown.
* Remedy – setting aside judgment and remittal for trial de novo before properly constituted tribunal.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Retrenchment procedurally unfair for employer's failure to consult; applicant awarded six months' compensation and outstanding terminal benefits.
* Labour law – retrenchment – consultation and disclosure – employer's duty to consult affected non-unionized employees under Section 38(1)(d)(iii).
* Labour law – procedural fairness – failure to consult renders retrenchment procedurally unfair.
* Employment rights – terminal benefits and unlawful deductions – requirement of prior written consent for salary deductions and proof of payment of terminal benefits.
* Labour procedure – statutory limitation – unpaid salary claims dismissed as time-barred under Rule 10 of the Labour Institutions (Mediation and Arbitration) Rules.
* Evidence – burden of proof – employer must prove fairness of termination; arbitrator erred by shifting burden and not giving employee benefit of doubt.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Probationary employees are entitled to fair procedure; unlawful dismissal merits compensation limited to remaining probation period.
* Employment law — Termination during probation — Section 37(2) ELRA and Rule 10(7)–(9) GN 42/2007 require fair reason and procedure.
* Burden of proof — Allegations of fraud/forgery must be strictly and cogently proved; absence of corroboration defeats justification.
* Remedies — Probationary employees unlawfully dismissed are entitled to accrued salary/benefits and compensation limited to remaining probation, not full unexpired fixed term.
* Procedure — CMA Form 1 functions as pleading in labour disputes; arbitrator’s discretion to exclude late evidence is permissible to prevent ambush.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Court granted probate to the petitioner as deceased had a fixed Tanzanian abode and assets despite dying abroad.
* Probate — Jurisdiction — Domicile/fixed place of abode within Tanzania may confer jurisdiction despite death abroad.
* Probate procedure — General citation and Rule 76 waiting period — publication and absence of caveat required before grant.
* Probate — Validity of will supported by death certificate, affidavit as to domicile and executor’s oath.
* Administration — Grant may cover assets within Tanzania and identified assets abroad; executor to file inventory and final accounts.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Whether the appellant can recover chargeback payments absent an express contractual obligation and without exhausting dispute resolution.
Contract interpretation — e-payment/chargeback liability; indemnity clause conditional on exhaustion of merchant dispute-resolution (cl. 4.1.7); burden of proof; intermediary/agent status and standing to sue.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Appellant proved a contract but failed to prove respondent’s liability for chargebacks; appeal dismissed with costs.
Contract law – existence of payment-processing agreement; Evidence Act ss.117–118 – burden of proof and standard (balance of probabilities); Chargebacks – merchant liability requires specific documentary proof; Sanctity of contract and strict performance; Appellate review – evaluation of factual evidence.
|
21 October 2025 |
|
Court convicted directors for forgery, uttering false documents and stealing by agent, rejecting registration presumption and civil estoppel.
Criminal law – Forgery, uttering false documents and stealing by agent; Vehicle ownership – registration prima facie, not conclusive where transfers are fraudulent; Issue estoppel – prior civil findings do not bar criminal prosecution absent identical parties and conclusive determination of criminal issues; Evidence – handwriting expert and bank records can establish forgery and unlawful disposition.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
Application struck out for non‑compliance with Rule 24(2): notice signed by representative, not the applicant.
Labour procedure – Rule 24(2) Labour Court Rules – Notice of application must be signed by the applicant; notice signed by representative is fatal; procedural defects going to the root are not cured by overriding objective.
|
17 October 2025 |
|
|
17 October 2025 |
|
Absence of mandatory notice of representation and an unverified affidavit paragraph rendered the application incompetent and struck out.
* Labour procedure – Notice of Representation – Rule 43(1)(a)&(b) Labour Court Rules – mandatory requirement; omission fatal.
* Evidence – Affidavit formalities – jurat requirements under Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act s.10 – personal identification by Commissioner for Oaths.
* Civil procedure – Verification of affidavits – Order XIX Rule 3 CPC – failure to verify paragraph renders affidavit defective.
* Procedural doctrine – Overriding objective cannot cure defects that go to the root of the matter.
|
17 October 2025 |
|
Applicants injured in road accident awarded specific and general damages; insurer held liable to indemnify respondents.
* Road traffic accident — liability of driver — severe injuries and permanent disability established by medical and eyewitness evidence. * Damages — distinction between special (specific) and general damages; specific damages must be proved and quantified. * Insurance — insurance cover note and sticker evidence; burden on insurer to disprove existence/validity of cover; insurer liable to indemnify if unable to rebut. * Costs — awarded against defendants and third-party insurer.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Both tenant and landlord breached the lease; landlord could not sell collateral without following contractual court enforcement.
Land law/Lease agreements – breach by both landlord and tenant; right to retain collateral (Article 7.2) versus requirement to follow clause 13.1 (notice and court enforcement) before sale; burden of proof for existence and value of inventory – balance of probabilities; failure to prove specific damages; award of general damages.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Appellant failed to prove title to unregistered land; seller lacked title so sale was void and appeal dismissed.
* Land law – Unregistered/un-surveyed land – proof of ownership requires tangible documents or an unbroken credible chain of oral history and possession. * Evidence – Appellate re-evaluation of credibility in first appeal; contradictions can break the chain of title. * Property transfer – Sale is void where seller lacks title; purchaser cannot acquire better title than vendor.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
The estate administrator obtained declaration, vacant possession and injunction where land formed part of the deceased’s estate and defendants lacked title.
* Land law – estate property – declaration of ownership of unsurveyed land as part of deceased’s estate.
* Customary tenure – Maasai family ownership and allocation – effect on alienation.
* Executor/administrator – authority and standing to protect estate property pending distribution.
* Validity of sale – purchaser’s title dependent on vendor’s good title; sale by person lacking mandate is void as against estate.
* Remedies – declaration, vacant possession and permanent injunction; costs ordered each party to bear own costs.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Administrator proved disputed customary land formed part of deceased’s estate; sales by heir invalid and defendants are trespassers.
* Land law – unsurveyed customary land – whether land acquired by deceased forms part of estate under Maasai customary law.
* Succession/administration – role and recognition of administrator and letters of administration.
* Title and transfer – validity of purported allocation/sale by an heir lacking mandate; purchasers’ failure to acquire legal title.
* Remedies – declaration of estate ownership, vacant possession, permanent injunction, costs.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
The court held the defendants misapplied plaintiff’s funds and must repay principal, damages, interest and costs.
* Civil law – contract (oral agreement) – oral instructions to purchase land and construct business premises – proof by bank transfers. * Burden of proof – where recipient admits receipt, burden shifts to recipient to account for funds; standard: balance of probabilities. * Evidence – admissibility and weight of bank statements without narrations; reliability of tendered agreements. * Advocates’ fees – claimed legal fees inconsistent with Advocates Remuneration Order. * Land law – effect of registered transfer: lawful registration to second defendant. * Remedies – restitution of misapplied funds, general damages, interest and costs.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Whether termination was unfair and compensation must be recalculated where a proposed replacement contract was never concluded.
* Employment law – Constructive dismissal – prerequisites require continued employment to be intolerable and caused by employer – presence of termination letter and no accepted alternative contract negates constructive dismissal. * Employment law – Unfair termination – employer's duty to disclose reasons per section 37(1)(2) ELRA – failure renders termination unfair. * Evidence – receipt of terminal benefits does not estop unfair termination claim. * Remedies – Court’s revisionary powers under section 91 ELRA and Rule 28 to correct apparent errors in CMA awards and recalculate compensation.
|
13 October 2025 |
|
Applicant appointed administratrix after public citation and absence of caveat, with inventory and accounting obligations.
Probate and administration – Grant of letters of administration over an intestate estate – Public citation and absence of caveat – Appointment of widow as administratrix – Duties: inventory within six months and final accounts after twelve months; minors as beneficiaries and verification of consent.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Failure to visit locus in quo where location and boundaries were disputed vitiated the tribunal’s judgment and required remittal.
Land dispute — locus in quo — necessity of site visit where location, boundaries or physical features are in dispute; Customary Right of Occupancy vs earlier grant — need for verification; failure to visit locus in quo vitiates tribunal’s findings; remittal for locus visit and fresh judgment.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
The court quashed a CMA dismissal after finding the applicants' timely submissions were ignored, remitting the matter for a de novo hearing.
* Labour law – Revision under Sections 91 and 92 ELRA – scope and exceptional nature of revision. * Procedural fairness – denial of right to be heard where tribunal ignores filed submissions. * Interlocutory rulings disposing of a case may be subject to revision if tainted by illegality or material irregularity. * Remittal for hearing de novo before a different arbitrator where procedural defect vitiates decision.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Administrative decisions imposing surcharge without hearing were quashed; respondents ordered to afford hearing and execution halted.
Administrative law — Natural justice — Right to be heard as constitutional principle; denial of hearing renders administrative decisions void; remedies: certiorari, mandamus, prohibition; halting execution of surcharge pending lawful hearing.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
An appeal filed after the 30‑day statutory period is incompetent; electronic submission counts only when fees are paid.
Magistrates Courts Act s.25(1)(b) – time for appeal; Electronic filing – filing date effective upon payment of court fees; Leave to withdraw and refile cannot cure an appeal already filed out of time; Extension of time must be applied for and granted to confer jurisdiction.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Omission of the respondent’s capacity in appeal papers renders the appeal incompetent and it is struck out.
Civil procedure — Appeal competency — Parties' names and capacities must tally between tribunal judgment and memorandum of appeal — omission of respondent's capacity renders appeal incompetent — overriding objective/"oxygen" principle cannot cure mandatory procedural defects.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Prompt, credible explanation for non-appearance justified setting aside dismissal and readmitting the appeal.
Civil procedure – dismissal for non-appearance – Order XXXIX r.19 CPC 2023 – sufficient cause and promptness required for re-admission; procedural objections on party citation and respondent’s lack of interest not fatal where parties remain unchanged.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Court upheld dismissal for negligence and insubordination, finding procedural and substantive fairness despite wording variations.
* Labour law – dismissal for gross negligence and insubordination – sufficiency of documentary evidence and admissions to prove misconduct.
* Procedural fairness – when a formal investigation report is required; right to be heard where employee abstains from hearing.
* Charge framing – variation in wording between charge sheet and termination letter not necessarily fatal if substance is the same.
|
8 October 2025 |
|
Negligence of an advocate, without more, does not suffice as reasonable cause to extend time to file costs.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – Law of Limitation Act s.14(1) and s.21(2) – exclusion of time while pursuing related appeal.
* Extension of time – test for sufficient/ reasonable cause – Mbogo factors (length of delay, reason, arguable case, prejudice).
* Advocates’ conduct – negligence of counsel generally not a sufficient ground for extension; parties have duty to follow up their matters.
* Taxation – computation of sixty days to file bill of costs under Advocates Remuneration Order rule 4.
|
8 October 2025 |
|
Whether combined claims for breach of contract, unfair labour practice and constructive termination are omnibus and the appropriate remedy.
* Labour law – omnibus applications – whether multiple causes of action may be combined in one CMA application – test: relatedness of reliefs, tribunal’s jurisdiction, and determinability by same forum.
* Labour law – breach of contract v. unfair labour practice v. constructive termination – interrelationship and distinct remedies.
* Civil procedure – remedial action where application is incompetent – striking out preferred to dismissal; revisionary powers of High Court over CMA orders.
|
8 October 2025 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to USD315,000 for surrendered shares; suit dismissed and costs shared.
Company/Shares – Proof of membership and transfer by company resolution; Burden of proof – civil standard on preponderance of probabilities; Damages – special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; Valuation – claimant must establish nexus between shareholding and monetary claim.
|
6 October 2025 |
|
Extension granted because apparent illegality in CMA decision justified relief despite unexplained delay.
* Civil procedure — Extension of time — Court’s discretion exercised judicially; factors: length of delay, explanation, prejudice and arguable illegality. * Labour procedure — Preliminary objections — Objections that require evidence or involve disputed facts are not pure points of law for summary disposal. * Appealability — Apparent illegality on the face of CMA record can constitute sufficient cause for extension despite unexplained delay. * Case law — Fortunatus Masha; Mbogo v Shah; VIP Engineering principles applied.
|
6 October 2025 |
|
High Court cannot directly revise a Ward Tribunal decision without prior challenge in the District Land and Housing Tribunal.
Land Dispute Courts Act — Proper forum to challenge Ward Tribunal decisions is the District Land and Housing Tribunal; High Court supervisory/revisional powers limited and triggered after parties exhaust District Tribunal remedies; Execution orders by District Tribunal do not preclude appeals or revisions; Use of High Court for direct revision of Ward Tribunal decision constitutes back-door appeal and abuse of process.
|
6 October 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove sufficient cause for extension of time; sealed copies unnecessary and sickness unproven.
Extension of time – discretion governed by Lyamuya principles – applicant must account for days of delay, show diligence; sealed judgment not absolute prerequisite where electronic copies available; sickness must be proven by medical/evidential support; alleged illegality must be apparent on the face of the record – failure to prove these grounds leads to dismissal with costs.
|
6 October 2025 |
|
Extension of time denied where delay was unexplained, soft copies sufficed, sickness unproven, and alleged illegality not demonstrated.
Civil procedure – extension of time – requirement to account for every day of delay – soft copies/electronic judgments sufficient to institute appeal – sickness must be proved by credible medical evidence – alleged illegality must be pleaded and apparent on the face of the record.
|
6 October 2025 |
|
|
6 October 2025 |
|
Application to vary custody order was time-barred under the Law of Limitation Act; misnomer was not fatal.
* Family law – custody – variation of juvenile court custody order – time limitation under Law of Limitation Act (Item 21, Part III) – 60 days for applications where no period prescribed.
* Procedure – misnomer/incorrect party name – misnaming not fatal where party attended proceedings and was not prejudiced.
* Civil procedure – wrong citation of law – wrong citation not necessarily fatal to an application.
* Jurisdiction – time-barred applications oust jurisdiction of the court to entertain them.
|
6 October 2025 |
|
Application to vary juvenile custody order was time‑barred under Item 21 Part III of the Law of Limitation Act; no costs ordered.
* Family law – custody – application to vary juvenile court custody order – whether applicant was proper party where name discrepancy exists – whether application was filed within limitation period (Item 21 Part III, Schedule to Law of Limitation Act Cap 89). * Civil procedure – effect of wrong citation of law – wrong citation not fatal. * Limitation – where no period prescribed, 60 days applies to applications under Item 21 Part III.
|
6 October 2025 |
|
Appeal dismissed; trial court order ambiguous and must be clarified by its author before distribution issues proceed.
Matrimonial property — ambiguous decree — clarification by maker of decree — remittance appropriate; functus officio — clarification not re‑deciding merits; Law of Marriage Act — valuation and description of matrimonial assets — procedural stage for complaint.
|
6 October 2025 |
|
Ambiguous matrimonial decrees should be clarified by the trial court; remittal for clarification is appropriate and appeal dismissed.
* Family law – Matrimonial property – Requirement for clear, descriptive decrees – Where a trial court’s decree is ambiguous, the maker of the decree should be asked to clarify its terms. * Civil procedure – Remittal – Clarification of orders by the issuing court does not necessarily offend functus officio. * Appeals – Appropriate remedy is appeal on substantive errors (valuation/distribution) from the trial court, not second‑stage challenge seeking new relief. * Execution – Property allegedly executed but not expressly part of decree must be addressed in light of the clarified order.
|
6 October 2025 |
|
Preliminary objections overruled where mixed factual issues arose; revision permitted to proceed on merits, costs to follow event.
Land revision — Revisional jurisdiction vs. specific remedies — Order XXI Rules 59–64 CPC — Locus standi of third parties affected by execution — Mootness/overtaken-by-events — Right to be heard (Art.13(6)(a) Constitution) — Preliminary objections raising mixed questions of fact not disposed at preliminary stage.
|
3 October 2025 |
|
An appellate court’s failure to decide raised grounds of appeal renders its judgment a nullity and warrants remittal.
Criminal procedure — Appeals — Appellate court duty to consider and determine grounds of appeal; failure to do so renders judgment null and void; sentencing jurisdiction — appellate correction vs nullification; right to be heard; remittal rather than stepping into lower court's shoes.
|
3 October 2025 |