|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2000 |
|
|
|
13 December 2000 |
|
The appellant's conviction was quashed as unsafe due to weak identification, no medical evidence for wounds, and an untendered caution statement.
Criminal law – armed robbery – safety of conviction – insufficiency of identification evidence; absence of medical evidence linking hospital wounds to gunshot injuries; alleged but untendered caution statement; appellate intervention where conviction unsafe.
|
13 December 2000 |
|
Appeal against conviction and sentence for causing life‑threatening burn injuries dismissed; sentence upheld.
* Criminal law – liability for causing serious injury by fire – assessment of eyewitness credibility and recanted statements.
* Evidence – appellate review of trial court’s implied factual findings regarding location and sequence of events.
* Sentencing – appellate restraint where conduct exposed victim to life‑threatening harm; sentence upheld as justified.
|
12 December 2000 |
|
Appeal against conviction and five‑year sentence for deliberately burning the complainant dismissed; prosecution evidence and severity of injuries upheld.
* Criminal law – Offence of causing grievous bodily harm by burning – deliberate setting of fire to person with kerosene – severity of injuries (35% burns, potentially fatal).
* Evidence – credibility findings – appellate court will not disturb trial court’s acceptance of prosecution witnesses where reasonably justified.
* Circumstances of incident – location of occurrence (inside victim’s room) supported by witness testimony and property damage.
* Sentencing – five years’ imprisonment within statutory maximum; not manifestly excessive given grave harm.
|
12 December 2000 |
|
Failure to take separate pleas on multiple counts renders the trial a nullity; convictions quashed and no retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Arraignment and pleas: each count must be read and a separate plea recorded; failure renders trial nullity; alibi defence requires no burden of proof; inconsistent prosecution evidence may preclude retrial; illegal sentence where it exceeds statutory maximum.
|
10 December 2000 |
|
Whether statements at a local dispute meeting were defamatory and whether qualified privilege was defeated by malice.
Defamation — elements: publication, falsity and lowering in community; Admission and corroboration of utterance; Qualified privilege for meetings called to resolve local disputes; Abuse of privilege and malice defeats qualified privilege; Appellate duty to re-evaluate evidence where lower court’s assessment is perfunctory.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
Execution of a decree does not divest an appellate court of jurisdiction; appeals must be decided on their merits unless execution is stayed.
* Civil procedure – Appeal – Effect of execution of decree pending appeal – Execution does not oust appellate jurisdiction absent stay of execution.
* Civil procedure – Appellate jurisdiction – Pending appeal remains competent and must be determined on merits even if decree satisfied by execution.
* Civil procedure – Procedural fairness – Appellate court must address grounds of appeal and not decide on extraneous matters.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
A district court’s decision on an appeal that was never properly filed is a nullity and must be quashed.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Proper filing requires payment of appeal fees – Application for extension of time to file appeal is distinct from a duly lodged appeal – District court lacks jurisdiction to decide a non-existent appeal – Judgment rendered on a non-existent appeal is a nullity and must be set aside – Application for leave to file out of time must be heard inter partes.
|
7 December 2000 |
|
High Court quashed district-court dismissal, restored appeal and reinstated struck-out appellants due to serious procedural irregularities.
Civil revision — scope of revisional jurisdiction under s.44(1)(b) — exceptional circumstances; Appeal procedure — striking out parties; right to be heard — condemnation unheard; Appellate duty — dismissal for failure to file submissions when hearing mode was proposed by opposing counsel; Primary courts — exceeding pleaded issues by adjudicating ownership in administration revocation proceedings.
|
4 December 2000 |
| November 2000 |
|
|
Possession of stolen property on accused's premises and a false statement do not alone sustain a robbery conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Robbery – Circumstantial evidence – Possession of stolen property discovered on accused's premises – Whether such possession alone proves robbery beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence of lies to police and whether lies amount to corroboration – Burden of proof remains on prosecution.
|
20 November 2000 |
|
Order 21 Rule 57 applies to third-party objections to attachments; a party to the suit cannot use it to set aside a sale proclamation.
Civil Procedure — Order 21 Rule 57 CPC — Jurisdiction to investigate claims or objections to attachment — Rule intended for third-party claimants to attached property — Parties to suit cannot invoke Rule 57 to set aside proclamation of sale — Application struck out for incompetence.
|
20 November 2000 |
Civil Practice and Procedure - Pleadings - Pleadings not disclosing a cause of action -Cause of action defined. |
17 November 2000 |
|
The court held that only the registered lessee had a cause of action; the operator and prospective purchaser lacked standing and their claims were struck out.
Cause of action – meaning and application – whether a prospective assignee or an asset-owning operator has cause of action in respect of refusal to consent to reassignment of national-park leases; standing of lessee to sue; preliminary objection; public policy considerations surrounding assignability of national parks leases.
|
17 November 2000 |
|
Failure to consult or obtain assessors' signatures invalidates a Primary Court conviction; appeal dismissed.
Criminal procedure – Primary Court proceedings – Requirement to consult assessors and have assessors sign judgments and sentences; Failure to consult/sign constitutes material irregularity rendering conviction nullity; Appellate powers – District Court properly quashing conviction; Trial de novo unnecessary where sentence already served.
|
10 November 2000 |
|
Applicant's age, illiteracy and pre‑dated medical report did not justify extension of time to appeal; application dismissed.
Extension of time — discretion of court — applicant must show sufficient cause or potential injustice; medical evidence — relevance and timing; concurrent findings of fact — failure to demonstrate legal error; counter‑affidavits — requirement to adequately rebut ocular evidence.
|
10 November 2000 |
|
Court taxed the bill of costs at shs.70,500, allowing some travel and preparation costs but striking off shs.68,500 as excessive.
Taxation of costs — bill of costs challenged as excessive — allowance for additional travel expenses due to exceptional transport disruption (El Niño/flooding) — reduction and striking off of excessive meal and accommodation claims — taxing officer’s discretion.
|
7 November 2000 |
|
Appeal allowed where trial judgment lacked required reasons, misdirected on burden of proof and failed to assess prosecution evidence.
Criminal law — burden of proof — prosecution's duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; Criminal Procedure Act s.312 — content and reasons required in a judgment; Evaluation of evidence — causation and credibility; Miscarriage of justice — defective trial judgment warrants quashing conviction.
|
7 November 2000 |
| October 2000 |
|
|
Proceeding ex parte on a mention date condemned the defendant unheard; trial, judgment and decree set aside, retrial ordered.
Civil procedure – ex parte hearing – trial court erred in proceeding ex parte on a mention date – condemnation unheard – nullity and retrial ordered.
|
25 October 2000 |
|
A duplicate employment claim is barred by Order 11 Rule 2(2) CPC and cannot be pursued against a non‑existent employer.
* Civil procedure – Order 11 Rule 2(2) CPC – relitigation and preclusion of claims already or ought to have been raised in earlier suit
* Civil procedure – Suit against non‑existent entity – inability to execute decree against non‑existent respondent
* Employment law – severance allowance – entitlement where employee allegedly terminated own service (not decided on merits)
|
20 October 2000 |
|
|
3 October 2000 |
|
Ex parte taxation reduces unsupported transport and allowance claims; bill taxed at shs.40,486 with remainder disallowed.
Taxation of costs – ex parte taxation where respondent absent after service – lack of receipts or proof justifies reduction – transport and allowance claims limited to actual travel under GN 515/91 Rule 11.
|
2 October 2000 |
| September 2000 |
|
|
Court struck out tax challenge: hotel levy finality and procedural/time limits for sales tax and stamp duty fatal; suit dismissed with costs.
Administrative law – tax assessments – jurisdictional limits: finality clause in Hotel Levy Act ousts judicial review; statutory appeal/limitation regimes (90 days/specified procedures) govern sales tax and stamp duty disputes; misjoinder doctrine – causes arising from same transaction against same revenue authority may be joined; procedural transfer of car benefit claim to magistrates’ court.
|
29 September 2000 |
|
Taxing officer drastically reduces a bill of costs, allowing only reasonable, substantiated expenses.
Costs and taxation – bill of costs – recovery limited to reasonable, necessary and substantiated disbursements – interpreter fees disallowed where not court-ordered – travel and meal allowances for others must be shown necessary.
|
27 September 2000 |
Civil Practice and Procedure - Appeals - Appeals to the High Court - Memorandum of Appeal filed without attaching to it a certified copy of the decree appealed against - Whether fatal to the appeal - Order xx. rule 20 and Order XXXIX, rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Code 1966 |
14 September 2000 |
|
Civil determination of land ownership does not bar criminal prosecution for trespass and threats.
Criminal law – trespass and threatening violence – effect of prior civil determination of land ownership on criminal prosecution – distinct actions and differing standards of proof; contradictions in witness testimony as to time held immaterial where presence and conduct proved.
|
8 September 2000 |
|
An appellate court cannot decide res judicata not raised at trial without directing additional evidence.
Civil procedure — res judicata — appellate court improperly deciding res judicata not raised at trial; appellate court must direct additional evidence under s.21(1)(a) Magistrates’ Courts Act or employ Rule 14; improper admission of prior judgment on appeal is error of law.
|
1 September 2000 |
| August 2000 |
|
|
High Court found appellant had been heard in the District Court and dismissed her complaint that she was denied opportunity to be heard.
* Administration of estates – appointment of administrator – challenge to appointment and appeals from Primary to District Court to High Court.
* Civil procedure – right to be heard on appeal – appellate court to examine record to establish whether appellant addressed court.
* Estate funds – alleged misappropriation and distribution order (TShs 7,134,650/-) – factual disputes in appellate record.
|
28 August 2000 |
| July 2000 |
|
|
Rectification of a subsidiary instrument has retrospective effect, but court refused to penalize plaintiff and ordered joinder of the Commission.
Interpretation of subsidiary legislation – rectification of printing errors (s.21 Interpretation of Laws and General Clauses Act 1972) – retrospective effect of rectification (s.28) – limits on retrospective application (proviso protecting against retroactive penalties) – competence to sue Specified Public Corporations and joinder of official receiver/Commission – section 9(1) Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 25).
|
6 July 2000 |
|
Taxing master reduced an advocate’s instruction fee to 3% of disputed property value and taxed the bill accordingly.
Taxation of costs – advocate’s instruction fee – application of scale (3% of value of property in dispute) – GN 515/91 – reasonableness of items in bill of costs.
|
4 July 2000 |
| June 2000 |
|
|
Leave to appeal refused: letter of offer justified treating suit land as registered and a locus in quo visit did not prejudice the trial.
Appellate procedure – leave to appeal – applicability of s.63(1) Magistrates' Courts Act to registered land – evidentiary weight of a letter of offer; Civil procedure – locus in quo visits – whether site visit prejudices trial – applicability of Nizar's case rule.
|
30 June 2000 |
|
Taxing Master reduced excessive instruction fees and taxed the bill at a substantially lower sum under GN 515/1991.
* Taxation of costs — reasonableness of instruction fees — Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules (GN 515/1991) — Rule 12 prohibits recovery beyond prescribed scales. * Taxing Master’s discretion to reduce exorbitant professional fees where matter not complex or proceeded to full hearing. * Chamber application and disbursement claims subject to taxation and reduction if unjustified.
|
26 June 2000 |
|
Taxing Master reduced and struck off excessive instruction fees; bill of costs substantially taxed down under GN 515/1991.
* Taxation of costs – Advocates’ remuneration – Application of GN 515/1991 – Rule 12 limits on instruction fees; Taxing Master’s power to allow, reduce or strike off claimed fees.
|
26 June 2000 |
|
Applicant's hospitalisation excused non‑attendance; dismissal order set aside and appeal remitted for determination on the merits.
* Civil procedure – setting aside dismissal for non‑attendance – proper evidence of illness (hospital discharge certificate) as justification for non‑appearance.
* Default – respondents served but failing to file counter‑affidavits or appear – court proceeding in absence of respondents.
* Appeal – matter remitted for determination on the merits and review of application of GN 2/88 by lower court.
|
23 June 2000 |
Prerogative Orders - Certiorari - Limitation of time in which to apply for leave to apply for certiorari - Application made more than four years after the action complained of— Application time barred - Section 18(3) of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance. Limitation of time — Prerogative orders |
23 June 2000 |
(From Arumeru District Court, Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1998, originating from Enaboishu Primary Court, Criminal Case No. 506 of 1997) Evidence - Identification — Identification of dogs at night — Need to adduce evidence to show whether conditions allowed for proper identification. |
23 June 2000 |
|
Taxing master reduced an excessive bill of costs, allowing TShs 314,400 and disallowing TShs 105,100.
Taxation of costs – Bill of costs – Competency and signature objections – Taxing master's discretion under Rule 11 – Limits on advocate remuneration (Rule 12/GN) – Excessive instruction fees where appeal disposed on point of jurisdiction – Specific allowance and disallowance of items.
|
16 June 2000 |
|
Taxing Master reduced an excessive Bill of Costs under GN 515/91, allowing Shs 314,400 and disallowing Shs 105,100.
Taxation of costs – scope and discretion of Taxing Master under GN 515/91 (Rules 11 & 12) – assessment of advocates' instruction fees, transport and appearance charges – effect of jurisdictional objections on costs – signature/incompetence of Bill of Costs.
|
16 June 2000 |
|
Bill of Costs filed in High Court after no costs were awarded; court struck it off as improperly filed and incompetent.
* Civil procedure – taxation of costs – Bill of Costs filed in High Court though no costs awarded in underlying High Court revision – Bill improperly filed and struck off. * Court broker fees – liability of decree‑holder under GN 315/97 Rule 7 – decree‑holder, not judgment debtor, liable for broker’s fees. * Forum – attachment orders and taxation arising from them should be brought in the court that issued the attachment order (Arusha District Court).
|
16 June 2000 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where dispute was resolved on credibility (question of fact), not an arguable point of law.
Appeal — leave to appeal under section 5(1)(c) AJA — concurrent findings of fact — credibility of witnesses — credibility as a factual question not a point of law — application dismissed with costs.
|
16 June 2000 |
|
Appeal allowed where convictions were unsafe due to lack of evidence and trial court's factual misapprehension.
Criminal law – conviction unsupported by sufficient evidence – proof beyond reasonable doubt – factual misconceptions by trial court – exclusive custody/control of property – unsafe conviction quashed.
|
14 June 2000 |
|
Convictions upheld on credible identification; sentences ordered concurrent, reducing total term to fifteen years.
Criminal law – Burglary and robbery – Identification evidence and credibility – Alibi rejected – Sentencing: concurrent rather than consecutive sentences where offences arise from one transaction; first offender mitigation.
|
12 June 2000 |
|
Res judicata does not automatically bar a subsequent divorce petition when new or continuing matrimonial grounds exist.
Res judicata — applicability to matrimonial causes; Matrimonial law — subsequent divorce petitions where facts or circumstances change; Distinction between ordinary civil res judicata and matrimonial matters; Reconstitution of District Court to hear petition on merits.
|
9 June 2000 |
| May 2000 |
|
|
Appeal allowed; convictions for forgery and theft quashed where evidence failed to prove appellant’s guilt.
Criminal law – Forgery and theft – Sufficiency of evidence – Handwriting/rubber-stamp expert confirming forgery but not identifying accused – Unreliable interested witnesses – Circumstantial evidence insufficient – Acquittal for lack of proof.
|
29 May 2000 |
|
The court upheld convictions for armed robbery and unlawful firearm/ammunition possession, finding evidence and corroboration sufficient.
Criminal law – armed robbery; unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition – confessions and corroboration – recovery of weapon parts and stolen property as corroborative evidence – convictions and concurrent sentences upheld.
|
29 May 2000 |
(Originating from Mbulu District Court, Criminal Case No. 90 of 1998)Criminal Law - Meeting convened to discuss and write a letter to the District Commissioner on mismanagement of village funds - Whether the meeting and writing of the letter amounted to a criminal offence. Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing - Sentences running consecutively — Sentences ordered to run consecutively without assigning reasons - Whether sentencing is proper. |
17 May 2000 |
|
An appeal to the District Court must be filed within thirty days; a late appeal was properly quashed as time-barred.
Appeal — Time bar — Appeal from primary court to District Court must be by petition filed within 30 days — Notice of appeal not a statutory substitute for filing petition — Limitation Act exclusion for time to obtain judgment only if court satisfied necessity.
|
5 May 2000 |
|
An appeal to the District Court must be filed within 30 days; notice alone does not cure a time‑barred petition.
* Civil procedure — Appeals from Primary Court to District Court — s.20(3) Primary Courts Act: petition of appeal to be filed within 30 days. * Limitation — exclusion of time to obtain copies of judgment: permitted only where court is satisfied exclusion was necessary. * Proof — possession of copy (exchequer receipt) defeats claim that time to obtain copy should be excluded. * Procedural requirement — issuance of 'notice' does not substitute for filing the required petition within time.
|
5 May 2000 |
Civil Practice and Procedure - Immunity from legal proceedings, how conferred - Waiver of immunity, express and implied - Waiver ex post facto - Preliminary Objections and their efficacy - Judicial Notice - Ouster of statutory provisions by case law - Procedure of raising Constitutional questions - The Vienna Convention |
2 May 2000 |
| April 2000 |
|
|
Trial finding that loan was unpaid quashed; unexplained award set aside; only short-period interest awarded; appeal dismissed.
Civil procedure – appeal – interference with concurrent findings of fact; Evidence – credibility of witnesses and requirement to explain disbelief; Contract/loan – proof of repayment; Remedies – unexplained/unquantified award quashed; Interest on business loan for brief retention period.
|
15 April 2000 |
|
|
12 April 2000 |