|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2013 |
|
|
Preliminary objections raising factual deficiencies cannot dispose of an attachment application; objections dismissed and merits to proceed.
* Labour law – interlocutory relief – attachment before pronouncement of award at CMA – jurisdictional limits of CMA to grant injunctions; * Civil procedure – preliminary objections – Mukisa test – distinction between pure points of law and issues of fact/proof; * Order XXXVI, Rule 6 CPC – compliance and particulars are matters for substantive hearing, not preliminary disposal.
|
31 December 2013 |
|
An application for leave to appeal filed under the Limitation Act was incompetent and struck out as time-barred.
* Civil procedure – competence of application – application for leave to appeal – whether section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act applies to leave to file notice of appeal or leave to appeal to Court of Appeal.
* Limitation law – s.14(1) inapplicable to leave to appeal; s.43(b) disapplies Limitation Act to Court of Appeal matters.
* Preliminary objection – wrong provision of law renders application incompetent; time-barred applications may be struck out.
|
27 December 2013 |
|
Application to review a jurisdictional ruling dismissed for failing to show an obvious error on the face of the record.
Labour procedure – Review under Rule 27(2) – scope: new evidence; manifest error on face of record; other sufficient reason; Judicial review vs appeal; Jurisdiction of CMA under paragraph 13 of 3rd Schedule to ELRA (including para 13(5)) – disputes originating from repealed laws and referrals by the Labour Commissioner; Error apparent on face requires obvious, self-evident mistake, not contested legal interpretation.
|
24 December 2013 |
|
Amicable settlement efforts can suspend limitation; party referrals to court use a 60‑day period, so the dispute was not time‑barred.
Labour law — limitation periods for labour disputes; accrual of cause of action for unremitted union dues; effect of amicable settlement/negotiations in 'checking' limitation; applicable referral period to Court (15 days for Director referrals v. 60 days for party referrals); jurisdictional objection based on alleged time‑bar.
|
16 December 2013 |
|
Application for revision failed for lack of proper statutory grounds; CMA award upholding transfer and two months' compensation confirmed.
Labour law – Revision of CMA award – Section 91(2) ELRA and Rule 28 LC – Proper specification of statutory grounds for revision; Employment law – Transfer of employee – employer’s managerial prerogative; Harassment at workplace – burden to prove discrimination or prohibited grounds; Compensation for inconvenience – adequacy of two months' salary award.
|
16 December 2013 |
|
Court confirmed unfair dismissal, quashed alternative compensation and costs, and ordered reinstatement under section 40(1)(a).
* Labour law – unfair dismissal – substantive and procedural unfairness – employer’s burden to prove misconduct and loss; * Employment and Labour Relations Act s.40(1) – remedies after unfair termination – reinstatement v compensation; * Arbitrator’s jurisdiction – cannot make alternative remedy orders inconsistent with statute; * Costs in labour proceedings – require frivolous or vexatious conduct and compliance with Guidelines (Rule 31).
|
16 December 2013 |
|
A supporting affidavit containing legal argument and prayers breaches Order XIX and renders the application incompetent and struck out.
Judicial review — preliminary objections — time limitation and extension of time; Affidavits — Order XIX Rules 1 & 3 Civil Procedure Code — affidavits confined to facts, not legal argument or prayers; Defective affidavit — expunge offensive paragraphs vs strike out application; Competence of application.
|
13 December 2013 |
|
Whether the respondent bank’s initiation of criminal proceedings constituted malicious prosecution without reasonable and probable cause.
Malicious prosecution – Initiation of criminal proceedings by a corporate institution – Whether defendant acted with malice and without reasonable and probable cause; evidential sufficiency (hearsay) by bank investigators; damages for reputation loss, mental suffering, loss of liberty and business income; interest and costs.
|
13 December 2013 |
|
Tenants have no automatic right of first refusal; injunction refused where damages are adequate and balance of convenience disfavors tenants.
Injunctions – principles for interlocutory injunctions (Atilio/ American Cyanamid) – public interest/public policy as a factor in balance of convenience – absence of statutory or contractual right of first refusal for sitting tenants – adequacy of damages as alternative remedy.
|
11 December 2013 |
|
Second appeal dismissed where appellant failed to prove family/clan title and lower tribunals correctly assessed the evidence.
Land law – proof of family/clan land – requirement of cogent evidence and proof of representation; Sale of land – written, witnessed transactions and open occupation establish title; Civil procedure – scope of second appeal limited to points of law absent misdirection or non‑direction by lower tribunals; Acquiescence/delay – prolonged non‑assertion of rights undermines later claims.
|
6 December 2013 |
|
Extension application struck out because affidavit was unlawfully attested by a commissioner with an interest.
Labour Court Rules – extension of time – Rule 56; Representative applications – Rule 44 – joint affidavit signed by all applicants removes need for representative leave; Preliminary objections – distinction between pure points of law and factual/discretionary matters; Commissioners for Oaths – Section 7 Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act – prohibition on attestation where commissioner is advocate or has interest; Effect of defective jurat – affidavit incompetency leads to striking out application.
|
6 December 2013 |
|
An amendment to plead for specific damages that does not alter the cause of action is not an abuse of process.
Civil procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Incorporation of specific damages – Whether amendment is abuse of process – Amendments that do not change the cause of action or surprise the opponent permissible – Authorities permitting substitution of damages for specific performance cited.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Court allowed plaintiff to amend the plaint to add specific damages, finding no abuse of process.
Civil procedure – Amendment of plaint; Abuse of process – Whether addition of specific damages alters cause of action or takes opposite party by surprise; Leave to amend – amendment allowed where it does not introduce new cause or unfairly prejudice opponent; Authority – allowance of change in relief from specific performance to damages.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution relied on uncorroborated co-accused statements and insufficient evidence of electrical interference.
* Criminal law – Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of co-accused – impermissible to convict solely on such evidence; * Offences against utility services – interference with networks and fraudulent appropriation of electricity – prosecution must prove elements beyond speculative inferences; * Evidence – mere mention by co-accused and receipt of money insufficient to establish commission of the charged offences.
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Conviction based solely on uncorroborated co-accused statements and payments insufficient to prove interference with electricity or fraud.
* Criminal law – conviction based on uncorroborated statements of a co-accused – requirement of corroboration for safe conviction
* Criminal law – interference with utility infrastructure and fraudulent appropriation of power – sufficiency of evidence
* Evidence – weight of payments, accusations and hearsay in proving criminal liability
|
4 December 2013 |
|
Bank’s control of a receivership sale and concealment of newer valuation amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation; plaintiff awarded refund and damages.
* Company law/receivership – status and agency of receivers appointed under a debenture – where appointing creditor assumes control receiver may become creditor’s agent. * Contract/conditional sale – integration of sale agreement and related credit facility as single transaction. * Misrepresentation – concealment and active misleading conduct (showing older valuation, concealing newer one, discouraging fresh valuation and imposing pressure) can amount to fraudulent misrepresentation. * Remedies – restitution, interest and general damages for loss caused by inducement to overpay.
|
3 December 2013 |
|
An appeal is not subjudice where parties overlap but the applicant's and respondent's suits involve different subject matters.
* Civil procedure – Subjudice – tests: same parties, same subject matter, competent jurisdiction, pending for hearing of merits. * Land law – distinction between damages claim and ownership dispute – different subject matters negate subjudice. * Preliminary objection – burden to show overlap of subject matter and filing particulars.
|
3 December 2013 |
|
Interlocutory injunction refused: monetary compensation claims are not irreparable and public interest in BRT project outweighs applicants' interests.
Interim injunction — Atilio v Mbowe principles (serious question, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) — monetary claims for compensation are generally compensable (no irreparable harm) — public interest/public policy may outweigh individual interests when refusing injunctions — status quo and res judicata distinctions.
|
1 December 2013 |
|
Time to apply for certified copies (if within limitation) is excluded when computing appeal filing period.
Limitation — computation of time for appeals — exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies — period between delivery and application (if within limitation) excluded — reliance on local precedents over foreign authority.
|
1 December 2013 |
| November 2013 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: ex parte judgment set aside due to procedural inconsistency and failure to consider relevant circumstances.
Civil procedure – ex parte judgment – application to set aside – inconsistency in trial court orders (ex parte hearing vs. issuing summons) – failure to consider advocate’s inability to attend due to traffic – remittal for inter partes hearing.
|
26 November 2013 |
|
Court reduced arbitrator's 18‑month compensation to the 12‑month statutory minimum and ordered nine years' severance pay.
Labour law – unfair termination – procedural fairness – compensation under section 40(1)(c) – minimum 12 months' remuneration; Labour law – severance pay under section 42 – entitlement after continuous service – court's power under Rule 55(2) to grant statutory relief not claimed at CMA; appellate revision – correction of excessive arbitral awards.
|
21 November 2013 |
|
Reliability of identification parades and voluntariness of a retracted confession supported convictions; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification parades – Reliability of in‑court / parade identifications where witnesses saw accused in daylight prior to parade.
* Criminal procedure – Confessional/caution statements – Retraction and voluntariness – Trial court’s duty to assess voluntariness and effect of excluding confession.
* Evidence – Sufficiency of prosecution evidence and effect of non‑call of certain witnesses on safety of conviction.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
A review cannot substitute for an appeal; court functus officio and the review application was rejected as incompetent.
Civil procedure – Review – scope limited to discovery of new and important evidence or error apparent on face of record – Review cannot be used as substitute for appeal – Court functus officio regarding its own decision – application held incompetent.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Review application failed where grounds were appealable, not new evidence or error apparent; Court held review incompetent.
Civil Procedure – Review under Order XLII Rule 1 – Review limited to new evidence or error apparent on face of record – Not a substitute for appeal – Court functus officio regarding its earlier ruling.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Review application dismissed as incompetent because issues raised were appellate, not review grounds, and court was functus officio.
Civil procedure – Review under Order XLII – Review limited to discovery of new evidence or error apparent on face of record – Court functus officio – Competency of review where grounds are appellate (nullity, lack of jurisdiction, misdirection).
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Lack of evidence of a weapon warranted substituting armed robbery convictions to burglary and reducing sentences.
Criminal law – Armed robbery vs burglary – requirement of proof of weapon or threat for armed robbery – where no evidence of arms, conviction may be substituted to burglary – appellate substitution of conviction and reduction of sentence.
|
18 November 2013 |
|
|
18 November 2013 |
|
Armed robbery conviction substituted to burglary where no evidence of a weapon; sentence reduced to 15 years.
Criminal law – Burglary v. Armed robbery; requirement of proof of weapon for armed robbery; substitution of conviction where evidence fits lesser offence; identification and arrest shortly after offence.
|
18 November 2013 |
|
Application struck out: incompetent for improper citation and barred by res judicata.
* Labour procedure – applicability of Civil Procedure Code (Order XLI) to execution/referential matters in the Labour Court; need for proper citation and amended pleadings.
* Civil procedure – competence of an application where purported leave to amend is not reflected by a filed amended application.
* Res judicata – finality of judgments in lower courts and on appeal prevents relitigation in another forum.
* Procedural compliance – requirement for notice of representation under Labour Court Rules (Rule 44).
|
15 November 2013 |
|
Application struck out for being filed late and for failure to file a notice of representation.
Labour procedure — preliminary objection — extension of time and compliance with Court order — notice of representation required under Rule 44(2) — representation at CMA does not automatically extend to High Court.
|
15 November 2013 |
|
Sleeping on duty amounted to misconduct but dismissal was procedurally unfair; limited monetary reliefs awarded, no statutory compensation.
Labour law – Misconduct – Sleeping on duty by security guard; Procedural fairness – Termination – Employer’s duty to follow disciplinary procedure and consider lesser sanctions (Rule 12(4)(a),(b) GN No.42/2007); Remedies – payment of terminal benefits, unpaid leave, repatriation and limited overtime; Compensation under s.40(1)(c) excluded where misconduct established.
|
15 November 2013 |
|
Application dismissed as premature—disciplinary process not completed and CMA had not determined the dispute, so court lacked jurisdiction.
Labour law – jurisdiction – premature filing – requirement to exhaust workplace disciplinary process before CMA determination – revision to High Court only after CMA decision (s.86 ELRA).
|
15 November 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed where it relied on hearsay and involved a land-ownership dispute pending in civil proceedings.
Criminal law – Malicious damage to property – conviction cannot rest on hearsay where the declarant did not testify; Criminal procedure – improper forum – criminal court should not determine disputed land ownership pending in civil proceedings; Evidence – hearsay inadmissibility undermines conviction.
|
11 November 2013 |
|
The applicant's summary dismissal was unlawful due to procedural breaches and insufficient proof of misconduct; awarded 12 months' pay.
* Labour law – unfair termination – procedural and substantive fairness under Employment and Labour Relations Act 2004 and GN 42/2007 (Code) * Jurisdiction – cause of action deemed to arise on date of dismissal letter * Evidence – burden to prove misconduct; senior management responsibility can negate employee culpability * Remedy – reinstatement may be refused where delay and partial fault exist; compensation as alternative remedy
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Bank and central bank held jointly responsible for delayed remittance; plaintiff awarded half of the penalty interest.
* Banking law – duty to externalize foreign payments – duty to remit customer deposits abroad without undue delay
* Administrative/monetary policy – foreign-exchange shortage and approval committee affecting externalization
* Liability apportionment – bank and central bank held jointly responsible for delayed externalization
* Contractual finance – levy and payment of penalty interest by third-party associate (evidence: bank and IFC correspondence)
* Remedies – partial reimbursement of penalty and costs awarded
|
4 November 2013 |
|
Bank and central bank held jointly responsible for delayed remittance; defendant ordered to reimburse half the IFC penalty.
Banking law – obligation to externalize customer foreign‑currency deposits; Central bank approvals and forex shortages affecting remittance; Liability for delayed externalization and apportionment of responsibility; Proof by bank correspondence and IFC acknowledgement of payment.
|
4 November 2013 |
| October 2013 |
|
|
Negligent miscalculation of the limitation period does not constitute good cause for extending time to seek revision.
Labour procedure – extension of time to apply for revision – applicant’s counsel’s inadvertent miscalculation and negligence do not constitute good cause – strict application of limitation rules – substantial delay despite prior 14‑day extension – application dismissed.
|
30 October 2013 |
|
The Defendant cannot be sued outside of contractual matters as per Tanzanian law.
Administrative law – Executive agency capability – TANROADS legal status – Suitability of suing an agency only in contract.
|
24 October 2013 |
|
Court rejected the applicant's excuse for delay but granted a one-week extension to clarify ambiguities in the mediated award.
* Labour law – extension of time to apply for revision of CMA mediated award – requirement to show good cause for delay; * Mediated award ambiguity – inconsistent number of beneficiaries and unspecified monetary amount; * Execution of decree – may proceed but can be stayed if decree amount deposited and revision application filed on time.
|
21 October 2013 |
|
Appellate court set aside excessive maximum sentence for defiling the Quran, stressing mitigating factors and s.35 sentencing options.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Offence under s.125 Penal Code (defilement of holy book) – Application of s.35 (misdemeanour sentencing, option of fine) – Mitigating factors (age, first conviction, provocation) – Whether maximum sentence justified by public order concerns.
|
9 October 2013 |
|
The applicant’s appeal contesting identification, arrest evidence and voluntariness of confessions is dismissed.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – identification of stolen property by recent possession and colour; production of seized item and receipt as cogent proof; Evidence – no minimum number of witnesses; voluntariness of cautioned statements – burden and inquiry; evaluation of circumstantial evidence and 'recent possession' doctrine.
|
7 October 2013 |
|
The applicant's trespass claim was time-barred under the three-year limitation for torts and dismissed with costs.
Limitation of actions – tort (trespass) – Item 6, First Schedule, Law of Limitations Act (Cap 89 R.E.2002) – three-year limitation period – time-barred claim – dismissal for incompetence.
|
2 October 2013 |
| September 2013 |
|
|
Whether the plaintiff's High Court suit is barred as sub judice under section 8 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Civil procedure – Subjudice rule (s.8 Civil Procedure Code) – Stay of proceedings where same subject matter and same plaintiff pending before another tribunal; preliminary objections on locus standi and jurisdiction not determined.
|
30 September 2013 |
|
Court stayed suit as subjudice under section 8 pending determination of a prior tribunal land application.
Civil Procedure — subjudice rule (s.8 Civil Procedure Code) — identical subject matter and same plaintiff — differing defendant names do not avoid subjudice — stay of proceedings to avoid conflicting judgments.
|
30 September 2013 |
|
Revision permitted against a post-judgment stay of execution; s.79(2) covers decided applications, not only suits.
Interlocutory orders — stay of execution — revisional jurisdiction — interpretation of s.79(2) Civil Procedure Code and s.43(2) Magistrates' Courts Act — 'any case' includes decided applications — revision competent where order made post-judgment.
|
30 September 2013 |
|
Redundancy amounted to constructive dismissal without consultation; employer ordered to pay twelve months' compensation.
Employment law – redundancy and operational requirements – constructive dismissal where employer’s conduct renders employment intolerable; statutory consultation and disclosure obligations under ELRA s38; remedy of compensation under ELRA s40(1)(c).
|
26 September 2013 |
|
A prior ruling that the High Court has jurisdiction precludes a later jurisdictional objection; suit proceeds to trial.
Jurisdiction — preliminary objection — interlocutory ruling — functus officio — Group Life Insurance under trust deed — employment/trade dispute jurisdiction.
|
25 September 2013 |
|
Full Bench wrongly determined employment contract suo motu; unfair dismissal warranted reinstatement or statutory compensation, debt deductible.
Employment law – unfair dismissal – employee suffering mental illness – requirement to afford opportunity to be heard; Industrial Court jurisdiction – s.58(3) Employment Act – contract determined only on application by a party; Remedy – reinstatement as primary remedy, statutory compensation under s.40(3) where reinstatement impracticable; Deduction of employee debt from dues.
|
17 September 2013 |
|
Court allowed inquiry into injunctive relief to protect a deceased's estate, rejecting objections on citation and locus standi.
Civil procedure – interim relief in absence of pending suit – Court’s inherent powers under ss.68(c) and 95 to grant injunctions to prevent defeat of justice; procedural mis‑citation not fatal where form and enabling provisions complied with; locus standi of heir to protect deceased's estate.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Court allows injunctions under inherent powers and ss.68/95; applicant heir has locus standi; preliminary objection dismissed.
Civil procedure — temporary injunctions — requirement of pending suit under Order XXXVII r.1 — inherent powers and ss.68(c) & 95 to grant relief in urgent cases — chamber summons procedure under O.XLIII r.2 — incorrect citation of law not necessarily fatal — locus standi of heir to protect estate assets.
|
13 September 2013 |