|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2006 |
|
|
Failure to prove village allocation and insufficient evidence led to dismissal of land-ownership claim with costs.
Land dispute – proof of allocation by village authorities – burden of proof – sufficiency of testimony of casual labourers – effect of permitting occupant to build house on ownership/possession – appellate affirmation of failure to prove title.
|
20 December 2006 |
|
Marital relationship does not convert spouses into same party for res judicata; Primary Court wrongly dismissed respondent's land suit.
Res judicata – identity of parties and privity; Primary Courts – applicability of Civil Procedure Code explanations; Revisional jurisdiction – suo motu revision and audi alteram partem (s.22(3) Magistrates' Courts Act) – decision may be based on record where no detriment results.
|
14 December 2006 |
|
A district court "ruling" that conclusively decides parties' rights is a decree and therefore appealable.
* Civil Procedure – Decree – whether a decision headed "Ruling" can be a decree under s.3 CPC.
* Appealability – rulings on no-case-to-answer that finally determine parties' rights are appealable.
* Construction – substance of a decision prevails over its label when determining appealability.
|
7 December 2006 |
|
District Court may quash Primary Court proceedings without hearing, but quashing must be justified; RM's res judicata dismissal was erroneous.
Magistrates' Courts Act — District Court revision of Primary Court proceedings; Section 22(1) and (3) — power to call records and quash proceedings without hearing; res judicata — improper dismissal where matter transferred; quashing and restoration of RM's case; revisional jurisdiction limits and proper grounds for quashing.
|
7 December 2006 |
| November 2006 |
|
|
Application for joinder struck out as time‑barred and supported by an incurably hearsay affidavit.
* Joinder — application under Order I r.3 Civil Procedure Code — third‑party joinder. * Limitation — Item 21, Part III, First Schedule, Law of Limitation Act 1971 — running of period for non‑party. * Civil procedure — interlocutory affidavits — Order XIX r.3(1) — statements of belief must state grounds. * Affidavits by advocates — limited to matters of personal knowledge; hearsay affidavits incurably defective. * Precedent — Court of Appeal authority binding on High Court (Lalago principle).
|
10 November 2006 |
|
Bona fide payments to administrators before revocation discharge the payor under section 50; non-joinder defeats additional relief.
Probate and Administration Ordinance s.50 – bona fide payments to administrators prior to revocation constitute legal discharge; fraud allegations in affidavits are hearsay; non-joinder and failure to cite enabling law render relief incompetent.
|
2 November 2006 |
|
Law firm discharged under s50 for payments to administrators before revocation; other relief struck out for non-joinder and lack of legal basis.
* Probate & Administration Ordinance s50 – bona fide payments to executor/administrator before revocation operate as legal discharge. * Affidavit evidence – hearsay allegations of fraud are inadmissible and require substantive proceedings. * Non-joinder and failure to cite statutory basis render relief for resealing or disclosure incompetent. * Bank disclosure orders require proper parties and legal foundation.
|
2 November 2006 |
| October 2006 |
|
|
Identification was reliable; conviction upgraded from stealing to robbery and sentence reduced to 15 years.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night where victims knew accused and lighting available – Waziri Amini principle; Criminal law – Elements of robbery where weapons used to threaten during theft – misdirection in convicting only of stealing; Sentencing – appellate reduction of excessive sentence.
|
19 October 2006 |
|
A first appellate court must decide appeals on the merits and may not improperly refer land disputes to a Land Tribunal.
Civil appeal — appellate duty to rehear — first appellate court must re-evaluate evidence and decide appeals on merits; Jurisdiction — improper referral to Regional Customary Land Tribunal; Land law — proof of ownership/right of occupancy on balance of probabilities; Evidence — admissibility and probative value of handwritten letters, photocopied minutes and secondary documents; Hearsay — inadmissible evidence; Failure to call a witness — no injustice where party declines witness and bias is apparent.
|
19 October 2006 |
|
An inordinate four‑year delay caused by applicant's negligence does not justify extension of time to seek leave to appeal.
Civil procedure — extension of time (rule 8) — application for leave to appeal out of time (rule 43(b)) — inordinate delay — negligence/lack of diligence not sufficient reason — prior authorities applied.
|
17 October 2006 |
|
A supplementary affidavit cannot amend a chamber summons or cure a mis-citation; application struck out as incompetent.
Civil procedure – amendment of pleadings; supplementary affidavit cannot amend Chamber Summons or cure mis-citation; affidavit content – no prayers or legal argument; application competence; extension of time applications.
|
12 October 2006 |
|
Conviction unsafe where nighttime visual identification was unreliable and the accused missed the identification parade.
* Criminal law — Identification evidence — reliability of visual identification at night; application of Waziri Amani principles; failure to include accused at identification parade; insufficiency of uncorroborated eyewitness identification; suspicion alone inadequate for conviction.
|
4 October 2006 |
| September 2006 |
|
|
A temporary injunction cannot issue absent a suit pending in the same court; appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Temporary injunctions – Order XXXVII Rule 1 CPC – requirement of a suit pending in the same court; Interlocutory orders – non-appealability under section 43(2) Magistrate's Courts Act; Jurisdiction – leave to file suit and proper forum for injunction applications.
|
14 September 2006 |
|
Revision application struck out as time-barred and supported by an incurably defective affidavit lacking place in the jurat.
Limitation — Revision — 60 days (item 21, Part III, Law of Limitation Act); Affidavit jurat — place of swearing — s.8 Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Ordinance (Cap.12) — omission fatal and incurably defective; re-swearing/amendment not permitted; authority: D.B. Shapriya v. Bish International BV.
|
4 September 2006 |
| August 2006 |
|
|
Applicant must exhaust Order 21 Rule 30(2) enforcement remedies before seeking committal for contempt.
* Civil Procedure – enforcement of decree against a corporation – Order 21 Rule 30(2) – attachment of corporate property or leave to detain directors as civil prisoners.
* Contempt of court – committal applications – discretionary and extreme remedy to be invoked only after statutory enforcement remedies exhausted.
* Requirement to exhaust execution procedures before seeking committal for contempt.
|
31 August 2006 |
|
Court granted extension to file appeal, accepting exclusion of time taken to obtain judgment and finding good cause.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – s.25(1)(b) Magistrates' Courts Act – High Court may extend time either before or after expiry of thirty days. * Limitation – whether time to obtain certified copy of judgment excluded from appeal period – position that such time may be excluded (supported by s.19 Law of Limitation Act and s.46). * Competence of extension application filed before expiry of limitation period. * Requirement of good cause and prospect of success for grant of extension.
|
31 August 2006 |
|
A dispute reported and certified as a trade dispute ousts the High Court's original jurisdiction; suit struck out.
* Civil procedure – sub-judice rule – requires a previously instituted and pending suit in a court of concurrent jurisdiction to bar subsequent proceedings. * Labour/industrial law – trade dispute – reporting to Labour Officer and issuance of certificate under Industrial Court Regulations establishes a trade dispute. * Jurisdiction – High Court has no original jurisdiction to entertain trade disputes (Tambueni Abdallah v NSSF applied).
|
11 August 2006 |
| July 2006 |
|
|
A district court may quash primary court probate proceedings, but cannot make adverse factual findings without hearing the affected party.
* Probate/Administration – Revision by District Court – Power to call and examine primary court records and quash irregular proceedings under s.22 MCA.
* Natural justice – Party must be given opportunity to be heard before any revisional finding detrimental to rights is made (s.22(3) MCA).
* Factual findings on beneficiary status and fitness to administer require evidence; unsubstantiated complaints insufficient.
* Interest in estate – descendant (grandson/son of previous administrator) holds an interest by virtue of his father's share and may be considered for appointment.
|
28 July 2006 |
| June 2006 |
|
|
A probationary employee has a right to a hearing before non-confirmation; wrongful termination may merit damages, not automatic reinstatement.
Employment law – Probationary employees – Right to be heard before non-confirmation/termination – Natural justice applies; breach renders decision void – Reinstatement not automatic; damages may be awarded.
|
27 June 2006 |
| May 2006 |
|
Elections - Election Petitions - Rules Governing Election Petitions - Whether Civil Procedure Rules apply in Election Petitions |
18 May 2006 |
|
Only instruction fees were re‑taxed; applicant’s undisputed salary deducted and instruction fee taxed at Tshs.33,912,450.
* Taxation of costs – instruction fees remitted to taxing officer for re‑taxation ab initio – only instruction fees subject to re‑taxation.
* Evidence – advocate’s salary for material period admissible by affidavit; lack of counter‑affidavit accepts salary and negates claimed office expenses.
* Advocates’ Remuneration – Schedule IX GN 515/1991: contentious proceedings over Tshs.3m attract 3% scale; advocate entitled to two‑thirds of that scale; excess payable over salary and office expenses.
* Procedural – items failing to show exceptional circumstances under rules 13 and 14 may be taxed off.
|
10 May 2006 |
| April 2006 |
|
|
CPC procedures are inapplicable to primary-court-originated matters and a jurat omitting the place of verification is fatal.
* Civil Procedure Code (1966) – inapplicability to proceedings originating from primary courts – applications under CPC in such matters are incompetent. * Affidavit formalities – jurat must state place of verification per s.8 Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act (Cap.12 RE.2002); omission is fatal.
|
20 April 2006 |
|
A Chamber Summons under the CPC is incompetent for primary-court-originating matters; a jurat omitting the place is fatal.
* Civil Procedure Code – inapplicability to proceedings originating from primary courts – chamber summons misconceived.
* Affidavit verification – jurat must state place – s.8 Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act (Cap.12 R.E.2002) – omission fatal.
* Preliminary objections – competence of application – striking out and costs.
|
20 April 2006 |
|
Conviction based on single uncorroborated identification and defective parade was unsafe and quashed.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Reliability of visual identification by a single frightened witness under unfavourable conditions. * Criminal procedure – Identification parade – Requirements for lawful, probative identification and effect of contradictions in parade evidence. * Evidence – Need for detailed contemporaneous description before seeing suspect; risk of mistaken identity where description is vague.
|
20 April 2006 |
|
Court allowed extension to appeal, holding time for obtaining certified copies excluded and discretion under s.25(1) justified grant.
Extension of time – sufficient cause – applicant’s belief about exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies; Law of Limitation Act s.19(2) – exclusion of time applies to matters originating from Primary Courts; Magistrates Courts Act s.25(1) – discretionary grant considering merits and importance of intended appeal; matrimonial causes – presumed marriage and division of assets; maintenance orders.
|
6 April 2006 |
|
Applicant granted extension to appeal; court accepts exclusion of time for obtaining copies and finds good cause for delay.
* Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – sufficient cause – mistaken belief about exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies. * Limitation law – exclusion of period for obtaining judgment/records in matters originating from Primary Courts. * Magistrates' Courts Act s.25(1) – discretionary factors include explanation, merits of intended appeal, surrounding circumstances and public interest.
|
6 April 2006 |
| March 2006 |
|
|
Affidavits missing jurat place/date are incurably defective; non‑operating shareholders improperly joined can be struck out under Order I r10(2).
Civil procedure – Order I Rule 10(2) CPC – striking out improperly joined parties; Jurat formalities – section 8 Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Ordinance (Cap 12) – place and date mandatory; Necessary vs proper parties – shareholders without a direct legal interest are not proper parties to disputes between a company and its lender; Counterclaim – loan recovery enforceable against borrower only; Procedural competence – chamber application struck out where supporting affidavits incurably defective.
|
24 March 2006 |
|
|
1 March 2006 |