|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2010 |
|
|
An order overruling preliminary objections in a review application is interlocutory and not appealable under section 43.
* Civil procedure – interlocutory orders – definition and appealability under section 43 Magistrates' Courts Act (as amended by Act No.25 of 2002).
* Review proceedings – distinction between separate review applications and non-duplicity.
* Functus officio – when a subordinate court may still hear subsequent review applications.
* Preliminary objection – competence of appeal where impugned order is interim.
|
7 December 2010 |
| October 2010 |
|
|
Applicant’s late-supplied judgment did not justify extension of time; matrimonial rules, not CPC r.1, govern appeals.
Matrimonial proceedings — appeals procedure governed by Law of Marriage Act and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules (s.80(3)) — Order XXXIX of CPC applies mutatis mutandis only as to rules 9–37 (Rule 38) — Order XXXIX r.1 (decree attachment) not applicable; Extension of time — section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act — applicant must account for every day of delay (Bushiri/Kalunga principles).
|
13 October 2010 |
|
An application for extension of time is premature until an ex parte judgment is first set aside.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Prematurity of appeal application where ex parte judgment has not been set aside – Order IX r.13 Civil Procedure Code; * Affidavit formalities – sworn affidavit – defect allegation overruled; * Authority: Mtondo v. Janmohamed.
|
7 October 2010 |
|
Applicant must first apply to set aside ex parte decree under Order IX r.13 before seeking extension of time.
Civil Procedure — Ex parte judgment — Requirement to apply to set aside an ex parte decree under Order IX r.13 before seeking extension of time to appeal; affidavit formalities; competency of extension applications; preliminary objections.
|
7 October 2010 |
|
Court held an e-mail can be a "document" and set five evidentiary hurdles (relevance, authenticity, hearsay, originality, prejudice) for admitting ESI; trial to proceed.
* Evidence — Electronic evidence — Whether e-mail is admissible in civil proceedings — Construction of "document" in section 3 of the Evidence Act to include electronically stored communications. * Evidence — Authentication of ESI — need for audit trail, provenance, process/system proof. * Evidence — Hearsay — analysis whether electronic output is a "statement" and applicability of hearsay exceptions. * Evidence — Original writing rule and admissibility of duplicates/secondary evidence for computer-generated records. * Judicial law‑making — courts may develop standards for ESI admissibility where legislation is piecemeal.
|
1 October 2010 |
| September 2010 |
|
|
Arbitrator’s failure to follow condonation procedure and to give reasons, plus contradictory findings, vitiated the award; matter remitted.
* Labour law – limitation/condonation – CMA must follow rule 29/31 procedure and give reasons before entertaining time-barred disputes.
* Arbitration procedure – necessity to state issues and observe rule 22 stages; failure to do so is material irregularity.
* Jurisdiction – internal contradictions in findings (no employment relationship but award of severance) vitiate proceedings.
* Remedy – quash and remit for fresh hearing in accordance with law.
|
29 September 2010 |
| August 2010 |
|
|
|
24 August 2010 |
|
Where the government is a party, employment disputes must be brought in the Industrial Court, not this High Court.
* Constitutional/Statutory jurisdiction – Employment disputes – Employment Act s.142 v. Government Proceedings Act ss.6(4),7; High Court (Magistrate Court Act) lacks original jurisdiction in employment matters involving government. * Forum – Industrial Court (Industrial Court Act s.16(1)) is the proper forum for trade/employment disputes involving the state. * Procedural – misjoinder and party capacity issues raised but rendered academic by jurisdictional ruling.
|
5 August 2010 |
| July 2010 |
|
|
Delay unjustified and extension refused where copy of judgment was obtainable and the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success.
Extension of time – s.25(1)(a) Magistrates' Courts Act; requirement to show sufficient cause; applicant's duty to follow up certified judgment; no court duty to notify ready copy; prospects of success – weak identification evidence; appeal unlikely to succeed.
|
17 July 2010 |
| April 2010 |
|
|
A same‑sex association is not a valid marriage; lower courts' matrimonial proceedings quashed as null and void.
Matrimonial law – validity of marriage – same‑sex association not a legally recognized marriage; Legitimacy of children linked to biological parentage; Civil procedure – appellate time limits – s.20(3) & (4) Magistrates' Courts Act (extension of time); Procedural irregularity – s.37(2) MCA – reversal only where failure of justice occasioned; Nullity of proceedings where underlying marriage is invalid.
|
30 April 2010 |
| March 2010 |
|
|
Night‑time identification evidence was unreliable and conviction was quashed due to material contradictions and gaps.
Criminal law – Visual identification at night – Requirements under Waziri Amani; contradictions in witness testimony; failure to call investigator; identification evidence must be watertight.
|
29 March 2010 |
|
Conviction for armed robbery quashed where visual identification at night and witness accounts were contradictory and unreliable.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification – conviction unsafe where lighting, duration and distance of observation not established and witnesses' accounts materially inconsistent.
* Evidence – Contradictions in time, sequence and particulars of stolen items undermine reliability of prosecution case.
* Procedure – Failure to call investigating officer may prejudice the prosecution's case but absence does not automatically excuse need for watertight identification.
|
29 March 2010 |
|
Appeal against a non-appealable dismissal order was incompetent and struck out; proper appeal should target the restoration refusal.
Civil procedure – appealability of orders – dismissal for want of prosecution – Order XL Civil Procedure Code – application for restoration – appeal competency – appeal struck out with costs.
|
12 March 2010 |
|
An appellate court may award costs in criminal appeals; High Court can fix unspecified costs using revisionary powers.
Criminal procedure – costs in Primary Court matters – appellate power to award costs under section 21 Magistrates' Courts Act – section 5, Third Schedule contemplates awards where charges are false/frivolous/vexatious – no strict requirement to record reasons – High Court’s revisionary power under section 44(2) to fill omissions and fix costs.
|
10 March 2010 |
|
Substituted publication in a local Tanzanian paper did not notify an applicant in Ethiopia; extension and re-hearing were granted.
* Civil procedure – substituted service – publication in local newspaper – effectiveness when intended recipient resides abroad and newspaper not circulated there. * Extension of time – sufficient cause where substituted service fails to achieve meaningful notice. * Limitation – exclusion of period of absence from the United Republic under section 20. * Procedural economy – combining prayers for extension and re-hearing permitted.
|
9 March 2010 |
|
Extension and re-hearing granted where substituted newspaper service abroad was ineffective.
* Civil procedure – substituted service by publication – validity where defendant resides abroad and newspaper not circulated in that jurisdiction; * Extension of time – sufficient cause to set aside ex parte appellate decision and obtain re-hearing; * Service where defendant resides outside Tanzania – Order V r.29 CPC; * Computation of limitation – exclusion of time absent from United Republic (Law of Limitation Act).
|
5 March 2010 |