|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1995 |
|
|
Applicant’s unexplained and dilatory delay in lodging appeals amounted to no sufficient cause; appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure — extension of time to appeal — applicant’s duty to act with diligence; administrative obstacle (court staff/refusal) must be specifically pleaded and evidenced; unexplained delay and failure to name responsible persons undermines claim of sufficient cause; an appeal filed out of time will be dismissed with costs.
|
22 December 1995 |
|
First appellate court wrongly summarily dismissed appeal; sale without required authority consent is void as against the authority but creates a licensee.
* Civil procedure – appellate review – first appeal as rehearing – District Court erred by summary dismissal; only High Court may summarily dismiss under Magistrates’ Courts Act. * Evidence – credibility and preponderance – assessment of conflicting witness accounts on title. * Land law – Arusha Native Authority (Consolidation) Order 1959, Order 14 – required written consent for sale; absence of consent renders transfer void as against authority. * Effect of void transfer – sale may be valid inter partes but purchaser treated as licensee; termination requires compensation/refund.
|
20 December 1995 |
|
An appeal is improper where the appellant fails to first apply to set aside the ex parte judgment in the court that entered it.
Civil procedure – Ex parte judgment – Proper remedy to challenge ex parte decree is application to court which passed it to set it aside (Order IX Rule 13) – Distinction between setting aside (service/default issues) and appeal (merits) – Appeal dismissed for failure to follow correct procedure.
|
14 December 1995 |
|
Appeal against conviction for stealing dismissed: evidence proved guilt, appellant declined to call witnesses, seven-year sentence upheld.
Criminal law – Stealing (s.265 Penal Code) – Sufficiency of evidence and corroboration; Right to call defence witnesses – opportunity given versus voluntary waiver; Circumstantial evidence (flight/absconding) corroborating guilt; Sentence – statutory seven-year term upheld.
|
5 December 1995 |
| November 1995 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: trial irregularity and erroneous limitation and possession findings led to quashing and remittal for rehearing.
* Civil procedure – trial irregularity – failure to sit with required assessors – proceedings vitiated and quashable.
* Limitation – computation of time – appellate court’s incorrect computation may render a dismissal as time‑barred unsafe.
* Land law – title/possession – alleged gift by ancestor and adverse possession – disputed factual findings require fresh determination.
* Appeal – appellate court may set aside and remit for rehearing where procedural and substantive errors affect outcome.
|
20 November 1995 |
|
Appeal over land title: whether long possession equates to permanent gift and how prior proceedings affect limitation and administrator’s authority.
Land law – possession and prescription – whether long, undisturbed possession establishes permanent gift or title; Limitation – effect of prior related proceedings on computation of limitation; Civil procedure – authority of estate administrator to institute proceedings and proof of such authority.
|
20 November 1995 |
| October 1995 |
|
|
Appellate court refuses to disturb concurrent factual findings on whether a livestock transaction was a korni hire or an exchange.
* Civil procedure — appellate review of concurrent findings of fact — appellate court will not disturb credibility findings supported by evidence. * Customary transactions — korni/kodi (hire/loan-on-calf) v. outright exchange — factual determination for trial court based on witness evidence.
|
31 October 1995 |
|
Ward Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over land possession dispute; appeals beyond Primary Court were incompetent and proceedings were quashed.
Jurisdiction of Ward Tribunals – limits under Act No. 7/1985; Land disputes involving possession not justiciable in Ward Tribunal; Competence of appeals – section 20(3) Act No. 7/1985 limits appeals to points of law; Proceedings from a tribunal without jurisdiction are null and void and liable to be quashed; Proper forum for land disputes – Primary Court or Land Tribunal under Act No. 22/1992.
|
11 October 1995 |
| September 1995 |
|
|
Where an appeal is nullified due to court error, the court may order each party to bear their own costs.
Civil procedure — Review of costs order — Appeal nullified for non‑compliance with procedural rule — Where nullification results from court error, parties ordered to bear their own costs — Power to review and substitute costs orders.
|
29 September 1995 |
|
A trial court may proceed when a party’s chosen advocate repeatedly defaults; such default does not automatically vitiate proceedings.
Criminal procedure – Proceedings in absence of counsel – Advocates’ default – Trial court entitled to proceed where chosen advocate repeatedly absent without leave; party present and given opportunity to participate cannot later complain of denial of right to be heard.
|
25 September 1995 |
| August 1995 |
|
|
Disputed land title should be litigated in civil court; criminal prosecution for trespass/damage is inappropriate when ownership is contested.
Criminal law – Trespass and malicious damage – Where ownership of land is disputed, matters of title and damages should be resolved in civil proceedings rather than by criminal prosecution – Unregistered land and limitation issues more appropriately determined in civil action.
|
28 August 1995 |
| July 1995 |
|
|
Appeal allowed because lower court issued a blanket eviction without ascertaining the specific parcel, risking minors' ownership rights.
Land law – Eviction – Court must ascertain with particularity which parcel is subject to eviction; blanket eviction orders unsafe – Sale agreement and change of ownership – Ex parte judgment and protection of third-party/minors’ property rights – Referral to lower court and stay of eviction.
|
27 July 1995 |
|
Eviction order uplifted where lower court failed to identify specific land parcel, risking prejudice to purchasers.
Land law – eviction – necessity to identify specific parcel before ordering eviction; ex parte judgment; protection of third‑party purchasers; procedural fairness; referral back to lower court; stay/uplift of eviction order.
|
27 July 1995 |
|
Ordinary courts retain jurisdiction over Operation Vijiji land disputes; section 6 of Act No.22/1992 cannot oust access to courts.
* Land law – Operation Vijiji – dispute over allocation and trespass to 200 acres. * Jurisdiction – effect of section 6 of Act No. 22 of 1992 purporting to confer exclusive jurisdiction on a land tribunal. * Constitutional law – ouster of ordinary courts’ jurisdiction; severance of unconstitutional provision to preserve access to courts. * Civil procedure – appellate review of concurrent findings of Primary and District Courts.
|
25 July 1995 |
|
A primary court's conflicting judgment is a nullity; the majority decision of magistrate and assessors is binding.
Primary court — contradictory judgment — later self‑reversing passage is a nullity; Magistrates' Court Act s.7 — majority decision of magistrate and assessors binding; appellate review — District Court properly reinstated initial unanimous finding; appeal dismissed.
|
18 July 1995 |
|
A primary court’s later contradictory judgment paragraph is void; the earlier unanimous finding and the District Court’s allowance of appeal stand.
Primary Courts – conflicting entries in a single judgment; majority and unanimous decisions under s.7 Magistrates' Courts Act; validity of later contradictory paragraph in judgment; correctness of appellate review by District Court.
|
18 July 1995 |
|
|
4 July 1995 |
| June 1995 |
|
|
Reported
Land Law - Land cultivated in common — Shamba - ownership of Civil Practice and Procedure - Appeal - Legislature’s various use of the words 'petition' and ‘memorandum’ - Whether significant difference when referring to grounds of appeal to a higher court - Section 25(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1984, and the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes of 1966 and 1985 respectively. |
27 June 1995 |
|
High Court upheld concurrent lower-court findings and ordered boundary conformable to the Primary Court's sketch map, dismissing the appeal.
Land dispute – boundary demarcation – encroachment and uprooting of boundary markers – weight of concurrent findings of Primary and District Courts – appellate restraint – adoption of Primary Court sketch map as boundary.
|
21 June 1995 |
|
Primary Court judgment unsigned by assessors is a nullity; appeals from it are incompetent and must be quashed.
Civil procedure – Primary Court judgment unsigned by assessors – defect renders proceedings a nullity – appeal to District Court incompetent – District Court proceedings and orders quashed – matter ordered reheard de novo before different magistrate and assessors.
|
15 June 1995 |
|
A custody suit against the wrong party is misconceived; custody must remain with the mother and the dispute with her must be litigated with proper parties.
* Family law – Child custody – Proper parties – A custody claim is misconceived if the person who actually has custody (the mother) is not joined as a party; court cannot adjudicate custody between non-parties.* Civil procedure – Locus and joinder – Suit against wrong party; dispute between non-parties cannot be decided in the absent party’s absence.* Remedy – Restoration of lower court’s decisions and declaration that children remain with the mother; costs to be borne by parties.
|
2 June 1995 |
| May 1995 |
|
|
Conflating distinct causes of action and trying a defendant for another's assault renders proceedings null and void.
Civil procedure – misjoinder/multiplicity of causes of action – where distinct wrongful acts by different persons give rise to separate causes of action, they must be brought in separate suits; trial court proceeding contrary to the plaint and trying a defendant for another's act is a nullity.
|
16 May 1995 |
| April 1995 |
|
|
Appellant failed to overturn concurrent factual findings on ownership and trespass; appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil appeal – concurrent findings of fact – appellate court’s reluctance to disturb well-founded factual findings – trespass to land/animal damage to crops – dismissal with costs.
|
25 April 1995 |
|
|
24 April 1995 |
|
|
24 April 1995 |
|
|
23 April 1995 |
|
An uncontradicted, reasonable explanation for counsel’s absence can justify reinstating an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Civil procedure – reinstatement of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution – sufficiency of explanation for counsel’s non-appearance – weight of uncontradicted evidence – discretion of trial court in refusing reinstatement.
|
6 April 1995 |
| February 1995 |
|
|
A High Court as second appellate court may re‑examine evidence afresh and was justified in refusing a certificate and leave to appeal.
* Civil procedure – Appeals from primary courts – Role of High Court as second appellate court – entitlement to examine whole evidence afresh and to make independent findings of fact and law.
* Procedure – Certificate and leave to appeal – requirements for points of law worthy of consideration by the Court of Appeal.
|
24 February 1995 |
|
Appeal allowed where appellant proved purchase and entrustment of a cow not forming part of the deceased's estate; lower courts' decisions quashed.
Property recovery – ownership of livestock – proof of purchase and entrustment; distinguishing personal property from decedent’s estate; appellate review of factual findings.
|
7 February 1995 |
| January 1995 |
|
|
Long, uninterrupted occupation and development can confer title by prescription; failure to pay filing fees does not strip jurisdiction if appeal otherwise timely.
* Civil procedure – appeal timing and court fees – non‑payment of filing fees does not automatically deprive court of jurisdiction; appeal may be entertained if otherwise in time.
* Land law – Operation Vijiji allocations and title – long, continuous occupation and cultivation may give title by prescription.
* Appellate review – reluctance to disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding occupation and ownership.
|
1 January 1995 |