|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2011 |
|
|
Revision application dismissed: several complaints time‑barred and refusal to start trial de novo is not revisable.
Revision jurisdiction; interlocutory orders generally not revisable unless material error/injustice; time‑bar under Law of Limitation (60 days) for revisions; Order XVII r.10(1) — successor magistrate’s discretion to start afresh; Mukisa principle on preliminary objections.
|
20 December 2011 |
|
Revocation of letters of administration without hearing violates natural justice and is a nullity; administrator restored.
Probate and administration – Revocation of letters of administration – Natural justice – right to be heard – failure to consider defence renders decision a nullity – appellate quash and restoration of administrator.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
The court held all biological children are heirs regardless of legitimacy and ordered sale with equal distribution including two ex-wives.
* Probate — Intestate succession — entitlement of all biological children irrespective of legitimacy or type of parental marriage; * Contributions by former spouses — not a basis for exclusive inheritance rights; * Administration — court orders sale of disputed property and equal distribution of proceeds; * Rent collected — to be paid to deceased's children only.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Drug trafficking is an unbailable offence; charge was sufficient and bail application dismissed.
Criminal procedure — Bail — Illicit drug trafficking excluded from grant of bail by statute; sufficiency of charge under s.132 Criminal Procedure Act; certificate of value not an ingredient of trafficking offence.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Where the respondent was despecified, the Parastatal Sector Reform Commission need not be joined and may be struck.
Parastatal despecification — effect of despecification on liability — role of Parastatal Sector Reform Commission as official receiver — misjoinder of parties — preliminary objection — striking out party.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Despecification of a parastatal removes basis to join its former receiver; defendant struck out for misjoinder.
* Parastatal law – despecification – effect of despecification on legal status of parastatal and its receiver
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – misjoinder of parties – striking out defendant for lack of legal basis to join
* Statutory instruments – GN despecification notices determine whether receiver may be joined
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Trial Magistrate’s demand that the applicant prove beyond the balance of probabilities was a miscarriage of justice; retrial ordered.
Civil procedure — Standard of proof — Balance of probabilities is the applicable standard in civil matters; requiring a higher standard is misdirection and a miscarriage of justice — Quashing of impugned decision and order for retrial de novo — Costs: each party to bear own costs.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
A clerical date error on letters of administration is not forgery; District Court reversal quashed and Primary Court grant restored.
Probate and administration – grant of Letters of Administration – clerical error in date does not amount to forgery – citation publication – revisional jurisdiction – impropriety of ex parte decision without examining court record.
|
16 December 2011 |
|
Statutory prohibition of bail for money laundering is constitutional; PCCB lawfully investigated and prosecuted related offences.
Constitutional law – bail – section 148(5)(a)(v) CPA – money laundering – presumption of innocence – proportionality test; Separation of powers – judicial discretion and statutory bar on bail; Criminal procedure – High Court powers (s.149 CPA) limited where legislature expressly prohibits bail; Anti‑corruption enforcement – PCCA powers, DPP supervisory control, NPSA s.22 and GN No.169/2008 authorising PCCB officers to prosecute offences discovered during corruption probes.
|
15 December 2011 |
|
Under Islamic succession, a surviving wife with children is entitled to one‑eighth of the estate; executor must satisfy that share.
* Probate – Islamic succession – Applicability of Quranic shares where deceased professed Islam – Surah An‑Nisa (4:12) entitlement of surviving wife to one‑eighth where deceased left children.
* Testamentary capacity and limits – Muslim testator cannot dispose by will more than one‑third of estate after debts and legacies.
* Probate remedy – executor ordered to evaluate estate and satisfy Quranic kithumni share; transfer of property of equivalent value permitted.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
The objector-wife is entitled to one-eighth under Islamic inheritance; executor ordered to evaluate estate and satisfy that share.
Probate – Islamic succession – kithumni (one-eighth) entitlement where deceased left children – testamentary dispositions examined for equivalence – executor ordered to evaluate estate and satisfy wife's Islamic share.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
Extension of time granted where court-caused decree defects and important land-ownership issues constituted good cause.
Appellate procedure – Extension of time under s.11 Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Court may grant enlargement where earlier appeal struck out due to court’s procedural defects (unsigned/incorrectly dated decree); substantive importance of issues (land ownership) can constitute good cause.
|
12 December 2011 |
|
District Court erred by failing to address limitation and misjoinder, warranting quashing and a de novo rehearing.
* Civil procedure – limitation – Courts must dismiss out-of-time proceedings under section 3, Law of Limitation Act.* Civil procedure – review vs revision – review is in same court/file; revision is in superior court under separate file; the two remedies cannot be combined.* Appeals – duty of appellate court to evaluate trial evidence and decide on merits; judgment confined to irrelevant technicalities is vitiated.* Supervisory powers – High Court may nullify flawed lower court proceedings and order de novo hearing.
|
5 December 2011 |
| November 2011 |
|
|
Holder of a power of attorney cannot prosecute a present natural plaintiff’s suit without showing donor abroad or incapacitated.
Power of Attorney – locus standi – verification of plaint – Order III r.2(2), Order VI r.14–15, Order VII r.4 Civil Procedure Code – holder of POA vs legal representative – donor must be abroad or incapacitated – suit struck out for defective plaint.
|
30 November 2011 |
|
Appeal dismissed as time-barred: filing completes on payment of fees; drawn order date governs extension period.
* Civil procedure – limitation – extension of time – drawn order as authoritative record of delivery date of ruling;* Civil procedure – filing of appeal – filing completed only upon payment of requisite filing fees;* Limitation law – where appeal filed outside prescribed or extended period remedy is dismissal under Limitation Act (Cap. 89);* Abuse of court process – filing after expiry of court-extended time discouraged and penalised.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Appeal filed after court‑ordered seven‑day extension was time‑barred and dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure – appeal time limits – court order extending time – drawn order authoritative for delivery date
* Filing requirements – appeal deemed filed only upon payment of filing fees
* Limitation Act (Cap. 89) – ss. 3 and 46 apply where governing law is silent on consequences of late filing
* Remedy – proceedings filed out of time are liable to be dismissed
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Applicant’s extension request in a criminal appeal was incompetent for citing a civil limitation statute instead of section 361 CPA.
* Criminal procedure – Extension of time to file notice of intention to appeal – Specific provision: section 361 Criminal Procedure Act – Law of Limitation Act (section 14) applies to civil matters only; wrong citation renders application incompetent – Article 107A(2)(e) and section 388 CPA do not cure statutory mis-citation.
|
24 November 2011 |
|
An application in a criminal appeal citing the civil Limitation Act is incompetent and was struck out; section 361(2) CPA is the proper provision.
* Criminal procedure – Extension of time to file notice of intention to appeal – Proper provision: section 361(2) Criminal Procedure Act – Law of Limitation Act inapplicable to criminal matters. * Procedural law – Wrong citation of law renders application incompetent where specific statutory regime exists. * Constitutional provision (Art.107A(2)(e)) and s.388 CPA cannot cure failure to cite applicable criminal provision.
|
24 November 2011 |
|
Failure to record evidence and to hear the applicant rendered matrimonial orders void; proceedings quashed for retrial.
* Family law – Divorce – Requirement to record evidence and give reasons before dissolving marriage – Law of Marriage Act obligations.
* Civil procedure – Duty to give reasons – Transparency and proper exercise of judicial discretion.
* Procedural fairness – audi alteram partem – applicant condemned unheard when custody and property orders altered.
* Revision – Quashing of proceedings and order for trial de novo where incurable irregularities affect justice.
|
20 November 2011 |
|
Reported
A defendant's report of an actual theft to police is not malicious prosecution merely because plaintiffs were later acquitted.
Malicious prosecution – elements required (prosecution, favourable termination, malice, absence of reasonable and probable cause, damage) – Reporting a genuine theft to police gives reasonable and probable cause – Acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution – Employer reporting crime to police not liable absent malice or false report.
|
11 November 2011 |
|
An appellant cannot unilaterally exclude time to obtain judgment/decree; a time-barred appeal filed without leave must be dismissed.
Limitation of actions – Appeals – computation of the ninety-day period – exclusion of time for obtaining copies of judgment/decree requires proof and, where necessary, leave under section 14 – parties may not unilaterally exclude time – time-barred appeals filed without leave must be dismissed under section 3, not merely struck out.
|
11 November 2011 |
|
Appeal allowed: nighttime visual identification was unreliable and identity was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification at night – reliability and factors required (light source/intensity, proximity, duration, familiarity) – Competence of witnesses/tender age under s127 Law of Evidence Act – Plea taking under ss228–229 CPA – Conviction quashed where identity not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed because night-time visual identification was unreliable despite proper plea and competent witnesses.
Criminal procedure — Plea-taking (ss.228–229 CPA) — Evidence — Competence of witnesses and tender age (s.127 Evidence Act) — Visual identification at night — reliability factors (proximity, light source and intensity, duration, familiarity) — Conviction unsafe where identification is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
|
8 November 2011 |
| October 2011 |
|
|
Applicant failed to prove genuine forgery, irreparable harm, or balance of convenience; injunction against bank’s enforcement dismissed.
* Civil procedure – interlocutory injunction – prerequisites: triable/genuine issues, irreparable injury, balance of convenience must co-exist.* Evidence – allegations of forgery/signature disputes require competent proof (police report, acquainted-handwriting or expert evidence) and opportunity for cross-examination.* Banking law – lenders' right to enforce securities; courts reluctant to restrain realization of debentures where debt admitted and no strong evidence of illegality.* Equity – claimant must come with clean hands when seeking equitable relief.
|
28 October 2011 |
|
Applicant entitled to refund and damages after respondent fraudulently sold defective, unroadworthy buses; respondent to pay costs.
Sale of Goods – implied condition of fitness for purpose; parol evidence and fraud exception; fraudulent nondisclosure of defects; estoppel where seller’s mechanics effect repairs; entitlement to refund and damages; costs awarded to buyer.
|
28 October 2011 |
|
Buyer entitled to remedies where seller knowingly delivered defective, non‑roadworthy vehicles and failed to disclose defects.
Sale of goods – implied fitness/merchantable quality – vehicle not roadworthy at delivery; Fraud – non‑disclosure of known defects vitiates sale and is exception to parol evidence rule; Repairs – estoppel where seller’s mechanics supervise/perform repairs; Remedies – rescission/compensation and costs.
|
28 October 2011 |
|
Night-time identification by a known victim was held reliable; conviction and 30-year mandatory sentence for armed robbery upheld.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification at night – Waziri Amani criteria (source/intensity of light, duration, proximity, and familiarity) – Prompt complaint and police RB as corroboration – Mandatory minimum sentence under section 287A upheld.
|
28 October 2011 |
|
General damages cannot determine pecuniary jurisdiction; suit claiming USD2,000 should have been filed in a lower court, so it is struck out.
* Civil procedure – Pecuniary jurisdiction – Suit must be instituted in the lowest grade court competent to try it (CPC s.13).
* Magistrates’ Courts Act s.40(2)(b) – District and Resident Magistrate Courts’ pecuniary limits.
* Damages – General damages are discretionary and cannot determine court jurisdiction; substantive claim controls.
|
27 October 2011 |
|
General damages cannot confer High Court jurisdiction; suit struck out for being filed in the wrong court.
Civil procedure – Pecuniary jurisdiction – Suit must be instituted in the lowest court competent – General damages do not determine jurisdiction – Section 13 Civil Procedure Code; Section 40(2)(b) Magistrates' Courts Act – Suit struck out.
|
27 October 2011 |
|
Whether a demand/notice served only on the defendant can constitute defamatory publication and disclose a cause of action.
* Defamation – requirement of publication to a third party – whether service of a legal demand/notice solely to the defendant satisfies publication element.
* Civil procedure – pleadings – whether plaint discloses a cause of action and when a plaint may be rejected for non-disclosure.
* Advocates’ procedure – notice of intention to sue/letter of demand served under rules (Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules, r.68).
|
19 October 2011 |
|
|
17 October 2011 |
|
Appeal allowed: insufficient evidence of forgery, family harm or defamation to sustain award of Tshs. 40,000,000.
Civil procedure; torts — alleged forgery of guarantor signature; defamation — libel and slander; bank’s right to advertise auction sales for debt recovery; insufficiency of evidence to support damages award.
|
15 October 2011 |
|
A party duly summoned who refuses to appear forfeits the right to be heard; non-joinder of a third party is no excuse.
* Land law – Ward Tribunal jurisdiction – right to be heard under s.16(2)(a) Ward Tribunal Act – requirement of notice and opportunity to explain.
* Civil procedure – ex parte Ward Tribunal judgments – duty to apply to set aside ex parte judgment if dissatisfied.
* Evidence/procedure – summons served and proven constitutes opportunity to be heard; refusal to appear forfeits right to complain.
* Court administration – obiter recommendation for procedural rules to regulate Ward Tribunal adjudicatory powers.
|
13 October 2011 |
|
Extension of time to appeal probate granted where concurrent proceedings and procedural steps constituted sufficient cause for delay.
Probate law — extension of time to appeal — sufficient cause for delay where parallel probate proceedings occur in different courts and records are forwarded — no order as to costs.
|
10 October 2011 |
|
A post-receivership tort claim is not a debt provable in bankruptcy; application dismissed with costs.
Bankruptcy law – debts provable in bankruptcy – necessity that debt/obligation exist or be incurred before date of receiving order; Public Corporations Act – enforcement against entities under receivership; preliminary objections – distinction between technical defects (striking out) and substantive defects (dismissal).
|
5 October 2011 |
|
An independent tort claim arising from alleged criminal acts is not necessarily within the Labour Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Employment law — Jurisdiction under s.94(1) Employment and Labour Relations Act (as amended) — Labour Court’s exclusive jurisdiction limited to matters arising from employment/interpretation of the Act and labour disputes under common law — independent torts (false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation) not automatically within Labour Court’s exclusive jurisdiction — District Registry competent.
|
4 October 2011 |
|
Applications under section 96 to correct clerical/arithmetic mistakes in a decree are not time‑barred.
* Civil Procedure — section 96 — correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes in decree — not time‑barred.
* Limitation — Law of Limitation Act (Part III, item 21) — inapplicable to s.96 correction applications.
* Procedure — preliminary objection on limitation overruled; substantive determination of alleged mistakes reserved for hearing.
|
3 October 2011 |
| September 2011 |
|
|
Court dismissed challenge to ICC award, holding arbitrators' decisions on party‑referred issues final and award enforceable.
Arbitration — Court supervision — Sections 15–16 Arbitration Act — Misconduct and 'error of law on the face of the award' — Parties' referral of legal/factual questions to tribunal bars re‑examination by court; procurement irregularity does not automatically void contract — Registration and enforcement of foreign ICC award.
|
28 September 2011 |
|
District Land and Housing Tribunal’s proceedings quashed for entertaining a purported land appeal originating from a Ward Tribunal criminal trespass matter.
Land procedure — Ward Tribunal criminal trespass finding — referral to Village Land Council to determine ownership — District Land and Housing Tribunal wrongly entertained matter as a land appeal — proceedings nullity and quashed.
|
20 September 2011 |
|
Applicant charged with wildlife offences granted bail; court refused to apply discriminatory cash-deposit proviso.
* Criminal procedure — Bail — High Court jurisdiction to grant bail in cases originating in Resident Magistrate’s Court; offences bailable. * Statutory condition — Economic and Organized Crime Control Act s.36(4)(e) declared unconstitutional as discriminatory; proviso to s.36(5) similarly not applied. * Bail conditions — monetary bond with sureties; surrender of passport; movement restriction; prohibition on association with game hunters.
|
19 September 2011 |
|
District Court erred in overturning Primary Court trespass conviction; prior title judgment and admitted encroachment warranted reinstatement with reduced sentence.
Criminal law — Trespass — Conviction where respondents admit encroachment; prior final determination of title precludes relitigation — District Court reversal of Primary Court for ownership reasons quashed — Sentence reduction for excessiveness.
|
13 September 2011 |
|
High Court quashed the district court reversal, restored primary court trespass conviction and reduced the sentence to three months.
Criminal revision; trespass to land; prior determination of ownership; improper appellate interference; quashing district court decision; restoration of primary court conviction; reduction of sentence; enforcement of service; order for removal of trespass materials.
|
13 September 2011 |
|
Collective pleas and unaddressed language barriers render convictions unsafe; individual pleas and clear translation are required.
Criminal procedure — Pleas — Requirement to take and record individual pleas when multiple accused are tried together; language/translation issues may vitiate plea and conviction.
|
8 September 2011 |
|
Conviction for theft quashed: prosecution failed to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt; omissions in charge curable.
Criminal law – Theft (s.265 Penal Code) – Failure to prove ingredients beyond reasonable doubt; charge curable despite omission of s.258/s.271 – Interested/accomplice witnesses require corroboration – Failure to call police and unexplained delay warrants adverse inference.
|
6 September 2011 |
|
Res judicata barred relitigation of company shareholding issues; plaint disclosed no cause of action and suit was dismissed.
* Civil procedure – res judicata – earlier determination of company shareholding and directorships bars relitigation of same issues.
* Company law – capacity to sue – necessity of board resolution for company to be represented in litigation; shareholders may sue in personal capacities.
* Cause of action – permanent injunction against directors individually to prevent company dealing with its own property not disclosed; suit frivolous and dismissed.
|
6 September 2011 |
|
A magistrate must specify the statutory basis, give a show‑cause hearing, and comply with s74/75 before ordering a bond.
Criminal Procedure — Bonds for keeping the peace and good behaviour — Sections 70, 72, 73 CPA are distinct and must be specifically applied — Right to be heard/show cause mandatory — Mandatory contents of order under s74 and explanation/reading under s75 — Order defective if duration/terms unspecified.
|
6 September 2011 |
|
Non-party petitioners lacked locus standi and failed mandatory Rule 8 and representative-procedure requirements; petitions struck out.
Arbitration — registration of arbitral award — locus standi of non-parties to arbitration; Arbitration Rules — Rule 8 mandatory requirement to annex submission/award; Civil Procedure — representative suits require leave under Order I Rule 8; Public interest litigation — Attorney‑General as guardian of public rights; Section 30(1)(e) and Article 27 not a basis for standing in private contractual/arbitral disputes.
|
6 September 2011 |
|
The appellant's conviction for grievous harm upheld on reliable eyewitness and medical evidence; sentence affirmed.
Criminal law – grievous harm – identification by eyewitnesses – medical evidence of injury – credibility of defence witnesses – unlawful mob justice – appellate review of sentence.
|
6 September 2011 |
|
High Court will not use its s.372 revision power to revisit subordinate court decisions already decided by the High Court on appeal.
Criminal procedure — Revisionary power of High Court (s.372 CPA) — limitation where High Court has already exercised appellate jurisdiction; Criminal procedure — raising insanity at trial (s.219 CPA) — inapplicability at appellate/revision stage; Practice — new grounds or jurisdictional objections raised first at hearing are afterthoughts and not properly entertained on revision; Remedy — appeal to the Court of Appeal, not section 372 revision, where High Court has decided the matter on appeal.
|
6 September 2011 |