|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2008 |
|
|
Respondent held in contempt for altering premises contrary to status quo orders; fined and ordered to pay costs.
Contempt of court – maintenance of status quo – construction/alteration of structure contrary to injunction; novus actus interveniens – demolition by third party not excusing respondent's own construction; remedies in contempt – attachment of person historically distinct from attachment of property; sanctions – fine or committal; variation application required where circumstances change.
|
19 December 2008 |
|
Appellants entitled to unpaid salary increments under Scopa Directive No.57; appeal allowed with costs.
* Labour law – salary increments – entitlement under Scopa Directive No.57 – applicability to parastatal employees
* Employment law – retrenchment – terminal benefits – effect of Treasury Registrar Circular No.4 of 1993
* Civil procedure – preliminary objections – locus standi – timeliness of raising procedural points on appeal
* Evidence – party asserting inapplicability of a directive must adduce evidence to that effect
|
18 December 2008 |
|
A declaratory employment-status order is not executable for monetary relief; applicants must pursue labour institutions.
* Civil procedure – execution – declaratory judgment – whether a declaratory employment-status order is executable into monetary relief; * Labour law – trade dispute jurisdiction – monetary claims for wages, fringe benefits and retrenchment fall within labour institutions’ competence; * Preliminary objection – jurisdictional challenge to execution proceedings.
|
15 December 2008 |
|
High Court dismisses execution of a declaratory employment order, directing monetary claims to labour institutions.
Labour law; execution of declaratory orders; employment status vs monetary relief; trade dispute jurisdiction; FILO principle; leave to execute; arrest of officers as civil prisoners.
|
15 December 2008 |
| November 2008 |
|
|
High Court varied cash-only bail to allow property deposit but upheld mandatory movement restriction under statute.
* Criminal procedure – Bail – Variation of bail conditions under s.149 Criminal Procedure Act – Whether cash-only bail may be varied to allow deposit of property under s.148(5)(e).
* Criminal procedure – Bail – Restriction of movement – Mandatory nature of restriction under s.148(6)(b) and limits on variation.
* Approval of sureties where sureties are not reflected on subordinate court record.
|
28 November 2008 |
|
Court varied excessive bail, allowing property option and reducing each accused's deposit to one-quarter of the total.
* Criminal Procedure Act, s.148(5)(e) – Bail for offences involving actual money or property – accused entitled to deposit cash or other property equivalent to half the amount involved.
* Bail – Co-accused – Principle of sharing half the amount among persons jointly charged – apportionment among accused.
* Variation of bail conditions – High Court power under s.149 to correct excess or restrictiveness in trial court bail orders.
|
28 November 2008 |
|
A procedurally defective ex parte tribunal judgment violates natural justice and may be set aside for inter partes hearing.
Land disputes tribunals — Ex parte judgment — Procedural requirements under Regulation 11(1) GN.174/2003 — Proof by affidavit vs oral evidence — Natural justice — Setting aside ex parte judgment and ordering inter partes hearing — Stay of execution.
|
21 November 2008 |
| October 2008 |
|
|
Procedural irregularities—denial of chance to defend and unlawful assessor substitution—vitiated Tribunal proceedings; retrial ordered.
Land procedure – refusal to allow filing of defence and proceeding ex parte – substitution of assessors mid-hearing – non-compliance with s.23 Courts (Land Disputes Settlements) Act – procedural irregularity vitiating proceedings – retrial ordered.
|
29 October 2008 |
|
A Ward Tribunal judgment lacking required member composition and record is a nullity and mandates a fresh trial.
* Land law – validity of sale and revocation – procedural prerequisites for challenging resale.
* Administrative/tribunal law – Ward Tribunal composition and quorum – requirement to show members and record of proceedings.
* Civil procedure – nullity of proceedings where statutory tribunal procedures not complied with – retrial ordered.
|
15 October 2008 |
|
Ward Tribunal proceedings lacking statutory member composition and record are nullities and must be retried.
Ward Tribunal procedure – composition and quorum – requirement to record members and proceedings – failure to comply renders proceedings nullity – proceedings quashed and matter remitted for fresh hearing.
|
15 October 2008 |
|
Labour court granted interim injunction restraining a teachers' strike for failure to show compliance with statutory ballot and to prevent irreparable harm to national exams.
Labour law – public servants and strikes – interplay between Public Service (Negotiating Machinery) Act and Employment and Labour Relations Act – requirement of supervised ballot under section 26(2)(c) – interlocutory injunction test (triable issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) – jurisdiction and procedure under Labour Court Rules.
|
13 October 2008 |
|
Statutory prohibition on bail for specified high‑value drug offences bars the High Court from admitting the applicant to bail.
Bail – statutory prohibition under the Drugs and Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Drugs Act (s.27) – interpretation of 'court' to include any court before which accused appears – presumption of innocence and liberty not automatically breached by lawful arrest and remand – commissioner’s certificate as proof of drug value – personal circumstances irrelevant for unbailable offences.
|
8 October 2008 |
|
The defendant's unargued preliminary objections were dismissed with costs for failing to file court-ordered written submissions.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objections – Failure to prosecute – Non-compliance with court order to file written submissions – Filing submissions tantamount to appearance and prosecution – Unargued objections dismissed with costs; Order 1 Rule 9 CPC; cause of action.
|
8 October 2008 |
|
Extension granted where appeal struck out due to court's incorrectly dated decree and applicant acted promptly.
Extension of time – sufficient cause – defective decree due to court error (variance between decree and judgment dates) – prompt corrective steps – substantive justice over procedural technicalities; counsel negligence generally not sufficient, but court error may justify extension.
|
6 October 2008 |
|
Extension of time to appeal granted where court clerk’s misplacement of timely-filed appeal documents constituted sufficient cause.
• Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – sufficiency of cause – misplacement of filed appeal documents by court clerk and subsequent striking out.
• Limitation law – section 5(14) Law of Limitation Act – timely original filing and procedural errors as grounds for extension.
|
3 October 2008 |
|
Applicant's tort claim for unlawful arrest was struck out as time-barred under the Limitation Act.
Limitation of actions – tort (unlawful arrest/false imprisonment) – accrual of cause of action – Item 6 First Schedule, Law of Limitation Act 1971 – preliminary objection – striking out for being time-barred.
|
3 October 2008 |
| September 2008 |
|
|
Lack of notice of the hearing justified setting aside the dismissal for want of prosecution and restoring the appeal.
Civil procedure – dismissal for want of prosecution – setting aside dismissal – necessity of proof of notice to party – restoration of appeal – effect of extension-of-time order.
|
29 September 2008 |
|
|
29 September 2008 |
|
Dismissal for want of prosecution set aside where appellant lacked notice; appeal restored to hearing.
Civil procedure — Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution — Setting aside dismissal where court record shows no notice of hearing — Prior extension of time did not itself restore appeal — Restoration to hearing and costs.
|
29 September 2008 |
|
Court excluded one disputed house from matrimonial assets, upheld custody to respondent, and remitted maintenance for rehearing.
* Matrimonial property – division under s.114 Law of Marriage Act – requirement to prove joint acquisition and extent of contributions (monetary or domestic). * Burden of proof – s.110 Evidence Act requires party asserting ownership to prove relevant facts. * Custody – welfare of the child paramount under s.125(2) Law of Marriage Act. * Maintenance – reconsideration on evidence; orders expire at age 18 (s.132); court may seek Social Welfare Officer under s.136.
|
16 September 2008 |
|
Plaintiffs' suit struck out for failure to comply with mandatory pleading‑signing requirements despite arguable cause of action.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections – cause of action – representative suits – Order I r.8 – signing pleadings – Order VI r.14 – verification – Order VI r.15 – curable verification defects – striking out for mandatory procedural non‑compliance.
|
10 September 2008 |
|
Application to quash medical council censure dismissed for lack of record and absence of mandamus grounds.
Administrative law – prerogative remedies – mandamus requires demand and refusal and an imperative public duty; certiorari requires error on the face of the record – absence of charge, proceedings or verdict defeats review. Medical Council – preliminary inquiries by Registrar and assistance from council members permissible; clarification letter by Council’s officers is not a Ministerial decision.
|
9 September 2008 |
|
The appellant's appeal was struck out as premature and remitted for revision under section 28 due to an extraneous award.
* Civil procedure – Industrial Court judgment – extraneous award inconsistent with pleaded reliefs – error involving injustice.
* Industrial Court of Tanzania Act, s.28(1) – revision as the proper remedy where there is an error involving injustice.
* Appeal competence – appeal premature where revision remedy was not first pursued.
|
5 September 2008 |
|
Leave to appeal denied; documentary title upheld over long occupation or cohabitation; appeal dismissed.
* Appellate procedure – leave to appeal – requirement of demonstrating a point of law deserving consideration where the matter has already been adjudicated.
* Evidence – title by documents – sale agreement and receipts establish legal ownership over mere occupation.
* Assessors – opinions may be considered but do not override documentary proof and the judge’s assessment of the whole evidence.
* Property and family relations – long cohabitation/possession does not create proprietary rights in land proceedings; matrimonial or compensation claims belong to other fora.
|
5 September 2008 |
|
Proven legal title by sale papers prevails over long occupation or cohabitation claims; matrimonial/compensation claims lie in other courts.
Land law – proof of title by sale agreement and receipts; possession and length of occupation do not override legal title absent proper legal claim; cohabitation/matrimonial property and compensation claims fall under Law of Marriage jurisdiction; assessors’ opinions considered but subordinate to documentary evidence.
|
5 September 2008 |
| August 2008 |
|
|
Farmer’s claims for breach, defamation and false imprisonment dismissed for failure to prove loan agreement and malice.
Contract evidence – oral vs documentary proof; Evidence Act s.110 – requirement for document to prove terms where document exists; burden of proof on party alleging a contract; defamation – publication established but justification/privilege where defendant honestly sought to protect commercial interests and no malice; tort of false imprisonment – no liability for complainant where police act on independent discretion.
|
19 August 2008 |
|
Court dismissed preliminary objection: failure to fix Speed Track by the court does not render suit incompetent to proceed.
Civil procedure – Speed Track under O. VIII A r.3(1) – failure of court to determine Speed Track – effect on competency of suit – striking out – distinguishable authorities where Speed Track was fixed – remedy by revision.
|
18 August 2008 |
|
Leave to appeal granted on important questions about execution, drawn orders' consistency with rulings, and the High Court's power to correct them.
Civil procedure – Leave to appeal – Execution proceedings – Attachment of bank account – Drawn orders inconsistent with judicial rulings – High Court’s power to correct drawn orders or invoke s.95 CPC – Finality of execution arising from irregular proceedings.
|
15 August 2008 |
|
Whether leave to appeal should be granted to challenge drawn orders, attachment and alleged irregularities in execution.
* Civil procedure – leave to appeal – grant of leave to appeal to Court of Appeal where important questions of law arise regarding attachment and execution. * Execution law – attachment of bank accounts; stay of execution; deposit of judgment sum in court. * Civil Procedure Code s.95 – whether section 95 permits correction of drawn orders inconsistent with rulings or amounts to impermissible review. * Regularity of execution – whether execution becomes final and unquestionable when procured through irregular or void proceedings.
|
15 August 2008 |
|
Extension of time denied where applicant’s claimed ignorance was contradicted by the deponent’s recorded presence at judgment.
Appellate jurisdiction – extension of time under s.11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Limitation Act s.14(1) inapplicable to s.11(1) applications; applicant’s alleged ignorance of judgment contradicted by deponent’s recorded presence; lack of diligence and absence of good cause defeats extension; prospects of success do not substitute for showing good cause.
|
12 August 2008 |
|
Applicants granted 21-day extension, leave to sue specified public authority and to pursue representative suit; costs shared.
Extension of time to file fresh suit; leave to sue specified public corporation (statutory leave); leave to institute representative suit; limitation and procedural delay.
|
11 August 2008 |
|
|
11 August 2008 |
|
Conviction based on hearsay and in absentia trial without s.226(2) inquiry was quashed; no retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – conviction based on hearsay – failure to call complainant – evidence held unsafe. * Forensic evidence – PF.3 inadmissible without medical officer’s testimony. * Trial in absence – duty under s.226(2) to afford accused chance to explain absence and show probable defence. * Remedy – conviction quashed; no retrial ordered due to delay.
|
6 August 2008 |
|
|
5 August 2008 |
| July 2008 |
|
|
Failure to notify the appellant of the ex parte judgment date renders the ex parte proceedings null and void.
* Civil procedure – ex parte proceedings – duty of trial court to notify absent party of the date fixed for delivery of ex parte judgment – failure to notify renders proceedings null and void; remittal for trial de novo. * Reliance on Cosmas Construction Co. Ltd. v Arrow Garments Ltd. (Court of Appeal) regarding right of absent party to be informed of judgment date.
|
31 July 2008 |
|
The court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s pleaded value was below the statutory threshold and inadequately pleaded.
* Civil procedure – jurisdiction – pecuniary jurisdiction of High Court (Land Division) under Section 37(1) Act No.2/2002 – adequacy of pleaded value.
* Pleading requirements – Order VII(1)(f) Civil Procedure Act R.E.2002 – need to state value of relief sought (e.g., fuel).
* Forum conveniens – claims below statutory threshold belong to District Tribunal; failure to plead requisite value defeats High Court jurisdiction.
|
31 July 2008 |
|
Applicant proved prior auction purchase and registered title; court removed the house from attachment after decree-holders failed to contest.
Execution — attachment of property — objection to attachment — proof of ownership after prior public auction and title registration — effect of decree-holders' failure to rebut evidence — removal of property from list of attached properties.
|
24 July 2008 |
|
A third party who purchased and registered title to attached property successfully objected to its sale to satisfy a decree.
Execution/attachment — objection by third party claiming ownership — proof by purchase at prior public auction and title registration — failure of decree-holders to rebut evidence treated as acquiescence — removal of property from attachment list.
|
24 July 2008 |
|
|
22 July 2008 |
|
Court reallocated matrimonial properties recognizing non‑monetary contribution and rejected orders forcing post‑divorce cohabitation.
Family law – division of matrimonial assets – s.114 Law of Marriage Act – contribution includes domestic and non-monetary efforts – children's welfare considered only for infant children – court may order sale or apportionment; Procedural law – matrimonial appeals governed by Law of Marriage Rules r.38; cross-objections need not be accompanied by decree copy under those Rules.
|
17 July 2008 |
|
A third party must invoke Rule 70 in the Primary Court to challenge attachment; appellate courts lack jurisdiction to determine ownership.
Execution and attachment – third party claims to attached property – requirement to apply under Rule 70 Magistrates' Courts (Civil Procedure in Primary Courts) Rules; Appellate jurisdiction – limits of District Court’s powers to receive fresh evidence and determine ownership; Jurisdictional error – quashing of proceedings where Primary Court failed to follow mandatory procedure.
|
8 July 2008 |
|
District Court lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership; objections to attachment must be heard under Rule 70 by the Primary Court.
* Civil procedure – Attachment and objections – Rule 70 Magistrates' Courts (Civil Procedure in Primary Courts) Rules – Application, notice and hearing required for third-party claims to attached property.
* Appellate jurisdiction – District Court cannot receive fresh evidence or determine ownership where Primary Court failed to conduct prescribed objection proceedings.
* Remedy – Proceedings and judgment of appellate/revisional court acting without jurisdiction are quashed and matter remitted to court of original jurisdiction.
* Costs – No costs where appellant litigated under legal aid.
|
8 July 2008 |
|
Reference against a Taxing Master's ruling must be supported by a properly dated jurat affidavit; undated affidavit warranted striking out.
* Civil procedure – Reference from Taxing Master's decision – Rule 5 Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules – requirement of chamber application supported by affidavit.
* Evidence / affidavits – Jurat requirements – s.8 Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act – jurat must state place and date.
* Procedural compliance – Undated jurat renders affidavit incurably defective – application struck out.
* Costs – respondent awarded costs when application struck out for defective affidavit.
|
4 July 2008 |
| June 2008 |
|
|
An appeal is incompetent if founded on a decree bearing two conflicting dates; the decree must show the judgment date.
Civil procedure – Decree must bear date judgment pronounced (Rule 7, Order XX); decree bearing two dates invalid; procedural defect affects competency of appeal; binding Court of Appeal precedent.
|
27 June 2008 |
|
Leave for judicial review refused where advocate’s affidavit relied on hearsay and lacked personal knowledge.
Judicial review – Leave to apply for prerogative orders (certiorari, mandamus) – Leave as a filter against groundless claims – Affidavit evidence must be within deponent’s personal knowledge – Advocate’s hearsay affidavit insufficient – Application dismissed with costs.
|
21 June 2008 |
|
Court struck out the applicant's land suit for lack of jurisdiction after the Land Disputes Courts Act commenced.
* Land law – Jurisdiction – Section 167 Land Act 1999 vests exclusive jurisdiction over land disputes in the High Court (Land Division).
* Land Disputes Courts Act (Cap 216) – Commencement (1 Oct 2003) and section 37 – allocation of original jurisdiction and monetary thresholds.
* Cap 216 section 54 – savings clause covers only proceedings pending at commencement; suits filed after commencement are not saved.
* Procedural consequence – suit filed post-commencement in a court without Land Division jurisdiction must be struck out.
|
19 June 2008 |
|
Amendment to Industrial Court Act permits High Court appeals; time to obtain copies excluded when computing limitation.
• Civil procedure – preliminary objections – jurisdiction and time bar.
• Labour/Industrial Court – appealability – Industrial Court of Tanzania Act (s.27) as amended by Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No.11 of 2003 permits matters to be called into question and heard by a full bench of the High Court.
• Limitation – Law of Limitation Act, 1971 s.19 – exclusion of time taken to obtain copies of proceedings, judgment and decree when computing limitation period.
|
19 June 2008 |
|
Two preliminary objections — alleged time bar and missing notice of intention to appeal — dismissed; appeal proceeds.
Procedure — appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal — preliminary objections — limitation under Law of Limitation Act (Part I, item 22) — certified copy and appeal period; Procedure — requirement (or absence) of notice of intention to appeal under Land Disputes Courts Act (Cap. 216 R.E. 2002).
|
18 June 2008 |
|
Alleged legal error about a statutory report is an appeal matter; review dismissed with costs.
Review — Order XLII Rule 1 — limited to new evidence, error apparent on face of record or other sufficient reason; legal errors are appealable. Employment law — Section 132 report — competence requires a Labour Officer’s report; Acting Labour Commissioner’s report held incompetent. Remedy — alleged legal or constitutional grievances should be pursued by appeal or under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, not by review.
|
10 June 2008 |
|
|
10 June 2008 |