|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2009 |
|
|
High Court upheld lower courts that appellant caused cancellation of respondent's wedding and must bear expenses, appeal dismissed.
Family law — widow's remarriage — objection by letter causing cancellation of wedding; Evidence — evaluation of witness credibility and balance of probabilities; Civil appeals — review of concurrent findings of fact.
|
23 December 2009 |
| November 2009 |
|
|
Sickness and poverty justified extension of time to appeal where the proposed appeal showed prospects of success.
Civil procedure – extension of time – leave to appeal out of time; sufficiency of cause – chronic illness (pulmonary tuberculosis) and poverty; prospects of success test; land dispute.
|
26 November 2009 |
|
Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed for lack of proper verification, supporting documents and prosecution.
* Civil procedure – application for leave to appeal out of time – requirements for affidavit verification and showing sufficient cause for delay – necessity of attaching notice of intention to appeal and intended memorandum of appeal. * Non‑attendance and failure to prosecute application – ground for dismissal. * Compliance with Order VI Rule 15(1) & (2) CPC (CAP 33 R.E. 2002).
|
19 November 2009 |
| October 2009 |
|
|
Admissions in the respondent’s defence and unchallenged ex parte evidence entitled the appellant to return of property, refund and damages.
Civil procedure – ex parte hearing – admissions in written statement of defence – evidential value; Partnership law – oral partnership agreement – recovery of contributions and personal property; Evidence – unpleaded claims and requirement of documentary proof for division of profits.
|
23 October 2009 |
|
Reporting suspected crime to police is qualifiedly privileged; applicant must prove malice to succeed in defamation.
Defamation — Reporting to police — Qualified privilege — Necessity of proving actual malice for liability — Dismissal of criminal proceedings does not alone prove malice.
|
23 October 2009 |
| September 2009 |
|
|
Summary judgment refused: pleadings were contested; procedural formalities and jurisdictional objection addressed.
Civil procedure – Summary judgment (Order 15 r.1) – requirement that parties not be at issue; Procedure – Order XLIII r.2 not mandatory before Order 15 r.1; Evidence – notice to produce is evidentiary, not a pleading; Jurisdiction – objection may be raised at any stage but requires formal notice/application.
|
30 September 2009 |
|
A dispute arising from employment terms is a trade dispute for the Industrial Court; multiple procedural defects rendered the plaint incompetent.
* Employment law – trade dispute – dispute arising from terms and conditions of employment falls under Industrial Court jurisdiction.
* Civil procedure – joining persons of unsound mind – Order XXXI rr.1–2 and Order I r.8 require next friend/leave for representative suits.
* Constitutional remedies – Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act ss.5–6 prescribe petition procedure and required contents.
* Pleadings – Order VI r.15 requires proper verification specifying place and date; defective verification struck out.
* Advocates Act s.44 – documents must be endorsed by the drafter; unendorsed plaint unlawfully received.
* Pleadings – replies must plead facts not be framed as submissions containing law and evidence.
|
29 September 2009 |
|
A revisional decision made without hearing the parties violates natural justice and is void.
Procedure — Revision — Determination without summons or proceedings; Natural justice — audi alteram partem; Constitutional right to be heard (Article 13(6)(a)) — Decision reached without hearing is void; Remedy — quashing and ordering rehearing de novo.
|
24 September 2009 |
|
Conviction supported by clinic and birth records despite inconsistent testimony; 30-year sentence set aside and substituted with absolute discharge.
* Criminal law – Rape – Weight of victim’s inconsistent testimony vis-à-vis contemporaneous clinic records and birth certificate as evidence of paternity. * Sentencing – Illegality/manifest unreasonableness of excessive sentence for an 18-year-old first offender. * Remedy – Setting aside sentence and substitution with absolute discharge under Section 38(1) Penal Code.
|
16 September 2009 |
|
Applicant's lack of funds did not constitute good cause to extend time to lodge an appeal; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time to appeal – requirement to show good cause – financial inability to engage counsel held not a sufficient cause. * Civil/criminal appellate practice – appellate court will not consider new grounds not pleaded in lower court; prospects of success cannot be raised for first time on appeal. * Magistrates' Courts Act, section 20(1)(b) – discretion to extend time.
|
11 September 2009 |
| July 2009 |
|
|
Conviction quashed for trial bias; retrial denied because applicant served a substantial part of the sentence.
* Criminal procedure — Judicial bias and recusal — Unexplained cancellation of bail and refusal to disqualify magistrate — Reasonable apprehension of bias. * Remedy — Quashing conviction and sentence; retrial discretionary where substantial sentence already served. * Fair trial — Justice must be seen to be done.
|
27 July 2009 |
|
Convictions for armed robbery quashed due to unsafe, contradictory identification evidence and trial court misdirection.
Criminal law – armed robbery – identification evidence – contradictions between eyewitness accounts and inadequate description of lighting/distance – unsafe conviction; burden of proof – conviction must rest on strength of prosecution; consolidation of appeals arising from same transaction; return of seized property (Exh. P3).
|
16 July 2009 |
|
Whether the house was matrimonial property divisible and whether the district court ignored the appellant's written submissions.
Family law — division of matrimonial property — whether a house is matrimonial property acquired jointly and therefore divisible; Civil procedure — alleged failure by appellate court to consider written submissions; Evidence — assessment of credibility and re-evaluation on second appeal; Succession/alienation — distinction between a will and an inter vivos assignment.
|
16 July 2009 |
|
The appellant’s challenge to a Shs.100,000 monthly maintenance order was dismissed for failure to rebut income evidence.
* Family law — Maintenance — Father’s duty to maintain under s.129(1) Law of Marriage Act 1971 — Maintenance payable despite separation.
* Evidence — Failure to produce material financial evidence — Adverse inference permissible.
* Appeal — Second appeal — Re-evaluation of evidence on maintenance amount and means.
* Procedure — Custody issue not entertainable where not raised at trial.
|
15 July 2009 |
|
|
10 July 2009 |
|
Appellate court affirms rape conviction; refuses belated admission of caution statements and deems PF.3 irregularity harmless.
Criminal law – Rape – Admission of additional evidence on appeal – caution statements not produced at trial; Criminal procedure – Irregular admission of PF.3 under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – harmless irregularity; Evidence – witness credibility and alleged bias; Magistrates' Courts Act s.29 – appellate power to receive additional evidence
|
9 July 2009 |
|
Peripheral contradictions and a procedural lapse in PF.3 did not render the appellant's rape conviction unsafe.
* Criminal law – Rape – Sufficiency and credibility of eyewitness evidence – peripheral contradictions and procedural irregularities not necessarily fatal to conviction.
* Evidence – Admission of additional evidence on appeal (s.29 Magistrates' Courts Act) – relevance and materiality required.
* Criminal procedure – Compliance with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act in production of medical/ PF.3 evidence – irregularity may be non-prejudicial.
|
9 July 2009 |
| June 2009 |
|
|
Conviction for sodomy of a seven‑year‑old upheld despite improperly tendered PF3; sentence substituted to life imprisonment.
* Criminal law – Unnatural offence (sodomy) involving a child – conviction upheld; improper tendering of PF3 by non‑doctor reduces its value.
* Evidence – medical report admissibility – compliance with section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act required.
* Evidence – child witness – unsworn testimony after voire dire (s.127(7) Evidence Act) may be sufficient if reasons recorded and corroborated.
* Evidence – non‑expert witness’ direct observations admissible under s.62(1)(a).
* Sentence – offence against a seven‑year‑old attracts life imprisonment under relevant Penal Code provisions.
|
11 June 2009 |
|
Child's unsworn testimony and parent's direct observations can support conviction; sentence revised to life imprisonment.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence; admissibility of PF3 under s240(3) Criminal Procedure Act; direct non‑expert observations admissible under s62(1)(a) Evidence Act; unsworn child evidence after voir dire under s127(7) Evidence Act can be sole basis for conviction; appellate revision powers s30(1)(e) Magistrates' Courts Act; sentencing — life imprisonment under s154 Penal Code for offence against a child.
|
11 June 2009 |
|
An application to strike out failed because Order 8A was inapplicable: no scheduling order or speed track existed.
Civil Procedure Code – Order 43 r.2 (chamber summons and affidavit) – Order 8A r.4 (prohibition on amendment of scheduling conference orders) – Order 8A r.5 (orders against defaulting parties) – scheduling conference – speed track assignment – striking out for reliance on inapplicable provisions.
|
9 June 2009 |
|
Appeal dismissed: tribunal procedure irregularities and credibility issues insufficient to overturn village land allocation; High Court had jurisdiction.
Customary land tribunals – procedural fairness and ex parte hearings – right to cross‑examination – village land allocation – witness credibility – jurisdiction to appeal to High Court under Land Disputes Courts Act s.54(5) and amendments to village land law.
|
2 June 2009 |
|
Appeal struck out as incompetent because it named a non‑existent respondent styled "TANAPA, Arusha".
National Parks Act – corporate capacity – only "The Trustees of the Tanzania National Parks" can sue or be sued; proceedings against "TANAPA, Arusha" non‑existent and incompetent; wrong name of party fatal; point of law on capacity may be raised at any stage; laches/estoppel cannot validate a non‑existent party.
|
2 June 2009 |
| May 2009 |
|
|
A District Court judgment written in Kiswahili contrary to statute is a nullity and must be quashed and remitted.
* Magistrates' Courts Act s.13(2) – language of record and judgment – mandatory requirement for English.
* Procedural irregularity – judgment in Kiswahili – nullity.
* Translation – whether translation can cure jurisdictional/mandatory defect – held cannot.
* Remedy – quash and set aside; remittal for rehearing de novo before another magistrate.
|
29 May 2009 |
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction for unnatural offence upheld on corroborated child and eyewitness evidence despite defective medical report.
* Criminal law – Unnatural offence – child complainant’s testimony – section 127(2) Evidence Act compliance and need for corroboration. * Criminal procedure – PF3/medical report admissibility – section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act non‑compliance requires exclusion. * Identification – proximity, familiarity and eyewitness testimony can suffice to establish identity. * Appeal – conviction may stand despite excluded medical evidence where other cogent corroboration exists.
|
7 May 2009 |
|
Court upheld conviction for unnatural offence based on corroborated witness identification despite defective medical report.
Criminal law — Unnatural offence (sodomy); Evidence — child witness voir dire (s.127(2) Evidence Act) and need for corroboration; Medical evidence — PF3 and accused's right under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act to elect to call the doctor; Identification — familiar identification by witness under moonlight; Appeal — evaluation of credibility and sufficiency of corroborative evidence.
|
7 May 2009 |
|
Leave granted to commence suit against a specified public corporation and its receiver/manager in the District Court.
Civil procedure – leave to commence proceedings against a specified public corporation – permission to sue a public corporation and its receiver/manager – respondents’ non-opposition to application – costs: no order.
|
7 May 2009 |
|
The applicant’s leave to appeal was struck out for relying on a non‑existent statutory provision.
Appellate jurisdiction — incorrect statutory citation; competence of application; jurisdiction cannot be derived from erroneously cited provision; application struck out; costs follow event.
|
6 May 2009 |
|
Appeal allowed: respondent failed to prove cattle claim; lower courts mis‑evaluated evidence and suit partly belonged in matrimonial proceedings.
* Civil procedure – appeal – re‑evaluation of evidence and concurrent findings of fact. * Burden and standard of proof – failure to prove claim on balance of probabilities. * Family/customary law – effect of abandonment and reception of bridewealth (downy) on property claims. * Competence – claims against spouse/relatives raising issues appropriate for matrimonial proceedings. * Evidence – limitations of hearsay and opinion about customary law. * Procedural compliance – language of judgment under Magistrates' Courts Act.
|
5 May 2009 |
|
A request for certified copies expressing intent to appeal can constitute notice and delay in obtaining them may justify extension of time.
* Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – delay in obtaining certified copies of proceedings and judgment may constitute sufficient cause.
* Appeal procedure – notice of intention to appeal – an application for copies expressing dissatisfaction may amount to notice.
* Primary courts – requirements for appeals to District Court – necessity of certified copies to frame memorandum of appeal.
|
4 May 2009 |
| April 2009 |
|
|
Unequivocal guilty plea and absence of unsoundness justified conviction; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – guilty plea – unequivocal admission of facts supports conviction; Mental fitness – no referral for medical examination absent signs of unsoundness; Criminal Procedure Act s.228(2) – admission of charge leads to conviction; Formal defect in charge sheet – no prejudice, conviction stands.
|
29 April 2009 |
|
Application for leave to appeal struck out as incompetent because it relied on a non-existent statutory provision.
* Civil procedure – leave to appeal – competence of application – grounding on non-existent statutory provision; jurisdiction cannot be derived from an erroneously cited provision.
* Preliminary objection – effect of wrong citation of law – application liable to be struck out.
* Costs – costs to follow the event when application is incompetent.
|
28 April 2009 |
|
An application for leave to appeal founded on a non-existent statutory provision is incompetent and was struck out.
* Appellate jurisdiction – citation of statutory provision – application premised on non-existent subsection – incompetency and lack of jurisdiction. * Procedural law – mistaken invocation of wrong provision – application liable to be struck out. * Leave to appeal – certificate of law vs matters of evidence.
|
23 April 2009 |
|
Grandmother's long possession conferred title; applicant failed to prove inheritance claim and appeal dismissed.
Property dispute; inheritance claim; effect of long continuous and uninterrupted possession in conferring title; proof on balance of probabilities; appointment of administrator and succession rights (Sweya Selel v. Bombasa (1978); Bwahama v. Alloys (1967)).
|
20 April 2009 |
|
Application for injunction was incompetent for relying on wrong provisions and was misconceived; prerogative writs required to challenge lawful orders.
Civil Procedure – Injunctions – Wrong reliance on Order 37 r.1 (property preservation) – Appropriate use of Order 37 r.2(1) for restraint of breaches or other injury – Inherent jurisdiction under s.95 limited where specific statutory remedy exists – Relief impinging on lawful decisions of constituted bodies requires prerogative writs (mandamus, certiorari, prohibition).
|
16 April 2009 |
|
An injunction application premised on wrong provisions and seeking to override a lawful institutional order is incompetent; supervisory writs required.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Wrong reliance on Order 37 r.1 (property injunctions) — Proper provision Order 37 r.2(1) — Inherent jurisdiction s.95 only where no specific statutory remedy — Relief to quash or compel decisions of established bodies requires prerogative writs (mandamus, certiorari, prohibition).
|
16 April 2009 |
|
Interim injunction application incompetent where wrong provisions invoked and inappropriate means used to challenge a lawful institutional order.
Civil procedure – Temporary injunction – Proper statutory basis: Order 37 r.1 (property injunctions) inapplicable; Order 37 r.2(1) appropriate for restraining breaches or other injuries – Inherent jurisdiction (s.95) not to be used where specific Code remedy exists – Relief to quash or compel lawful decisions of established bodies requires prerogative writs (mandamus, certiorari, prohibition).
|
16 April 2009 |
|
Alleged document forgery and reliance on agency failed; appellant's conviction for cattle theft upheld and appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Theft – Cattle theft under Penal Code – Evidence and documentary tampering; admissibility and effect of altered documents. * Criminal liability – Principle of agency inapplicable to personal criminal responsibility. * Civil v criminal – Acts of stealing property constitute criminal offence, not merely tortious liability.
|
15 April 2009 |
|
Appeal against cattle-theft conviction dismissed; appellant held to have tampered with documentary evidence and criminally liable.
Criminal law – cattle theft (s.265 Penal Code); documentary evidence tampering and authenticity; inadmissibility of agency as a defence to personal criminal liability; distinction between criminal theft and civil/tort claims.
|
15 April 2009 |
|
Leave granted to commence district-court proceedings against a public corporation and its receiver/manager; no costs.
Civil procedure – application for leave to sue a specified public corporation – leave granted to commence proceedings in District Court against public corporation and its receiver/manager – respondents withdrew opposition – no order as to costs.
|
3 April 2009 |
|
The court granted applicants leave to sue a specified public corporation and its receiver/manager in the Arusha District Court.
Leave to sue specified public corporation; leave to commence proceedings against receiver/manager; respondents' non-opposition; District Court jurisdiction; no order as to costs.
|
3 April 2009 |
| March 2009 |
|
|
A person actively instrumental in initiating legal proceedings may be a 'prosecutor', but absence of reasonable cause and malice must both be proven for malicious prosecution liability.
Malicious prosecution — Who is a prosecutor — An individual actively instrumental in setting legal process in motion qualifies as a prosecutor; Elements of malicious prosecution — prosecution by defendant; termination in favour; absence of reasonable and probable cause; malice — all must be proved; Reasonable and probable cause — honest belief based on reasonable grounds; Malice — improper motive required, negligence alone insufficient; Damages — general vs special damages; pleading and proof requirements.
|
27 March 2009 |
|
Whether the employer's report to police amounted to malicious prosecution; court found reasonable cause and allowed the appeal.
Malicious prosecution — elements — who is a "prosecutor" (actively instrumental in setting law in motion); reasonable and probable cause — honest belief founded on reasonable grounds; malice — improper motive required in addition to lack of cause; burden of proof on plaintiff; special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved; duty to report (Criminal Procedure Act s.7(1)) does not preclude malicious prosecution liability.
|
27 March 2009 |
|
Applicant's challenge to a taxation decision dismissed for failure to file the decision and comply with court directions.
Civil procedure – application to quash taxation decision – failure to file and serve the decision sought to be quashed – non-compliance with consent timetable for written submissions – dismissal for want of prosecution – costs awarded.
|
12 March 2009 |
|
Declaratory claims to ownership of unregistered customary land require prior High Court leave under section 63; RM court lacked jurisdiction.
Magistrates' Courts Act s63 – prior leave of High Court required for suits involving unregistered customary land; declaratory relief to establish ownership does not avoid leave requirement; jurisdictional competence of Resident Magistrate's Court; Land Disputes Courts Act (not yet in effect) irrelevant to leave requirement.
|
12 March 2009 |
|
|
12 March 2009 |
|
Applicant secured disqualification of alleged agent for lacking advocate qualifications and relying on an invalid power of attorney.
Civil procedure – powers of attorney – Order III Rule 1 and 2(a) – appearance in High Court by parties or advocates only – professional agents for gain prohibited; Advocates' Act qualifications; validity of power of attorney signed by one party for others.
|
9 March 2009 |
|
Whether a High Court should retain a suit overvalued by pre‑suit interest instead of returning it to the lower court.
* Civil procedure – Pecuniary jurisdiction – valuation of suit – principal sum governs valuation; pre‑suit interest is substantive and cannot be added to determine jurisdiction. * Civil procedure – Section 13 CPC – procedural rule does not oust higher court jurisdiction; High Court may retain but ordinarily should return plaint within lower court pecuniary limits. * Civil procedure – Order VII Rule 10(1) CPC – returning plaint to be presented in appropriate lower court. * Limitation – claim grounded in breach of employment duties (contract) not tort; suit within six‑year limitation period. * Preliminary objections – factual disputes (inter‑branch reconciliation, role of signatories) cannot be disposed of on points of law.
|
9 March 2009 |
|
Appeal allowed: District Court’s judgment set aside for procedural defects, unproven claims and an excessive award beyond pleaded amount.
Employment law – procedure – statutory requirement for Labour Officer’s report (s.130 Employment Ordinance) – Representative actions – prior leave required under Order I r.8 CPC – Proof by multiple plaintiffs – necessity that each plaintiff prove own claim where no valid representative suit – Criminal/procedural fairness – submission of no case to answer and right to call evidence – limits on award to amount pleaded and proved.
|
5 March 2009 |
|
A court vacated an ex parte order where the respondent attended court late, upholding the right to be heard.
Civil procedure – ex parte proceedings – vacatur of ex parte order where party attended but was late; right to be heard; mentions and attendance timing.
|
2 March 2009 |
| February 2009 |
|
|
Procedural objections rejected; trial court faulted for failing to define land boundaries, but appellate court dismissed the appeal.
Criminal appeal — limitation and time bar — notice of appeal from primary court — plea of guilt — criminal trespass — proof of ownership and identity of land — necessity of sketch plan or locus in quo inspection — standard/burden of proof in criminal cases.
|
13 February 2009 |