High Court of Tanzania

This is the second level in the Judiciary justice delivery hierarchy. It has both appellate and original powers on civil and criminal matters. It also hears appeals from the Courts of Resident Magistrate, the District Courts, and the District Land and Housing Tribunals in exercise of their original, appellate and/or revisional jurisdiction. The High Court is divided into Zones and specialized Divisions.

Physical address

24 Kivukoni Road, P O Box: S.L.P. 9004

Visit website

https://jmap.judiciary.go.tz/jmap/jmap-hc

12 judgments

Advanced search

Court registries

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

12 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
May 2013
East African Cables (TZ) Limited vs Bepha B. Mugasa (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2009) [2013] TZHC 2255 (27 May 2013)	27 May 2013
Divisheni Valery vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2011) [2013] TZHC 2309 (24 May 2013) Appellate court affirmed rape conviction, holding eyewitness and medical evidence sufficient despite no spermatozoa and minor inconsistencies. Criminal law – Rape – sufficiency of evidence; hearsay – distinction between hearsay and direct evidence; child witnesses – admissibility under s.127(2) Evidence Act after voir dire; medical evidence – absence of spermatozoa not fatal to rape charge; trial court’s primary role in credibility assessment.	24 May 2013
Michael Thomas Nyungi vs Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority & Another (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 28 of 2011) [2013] TZHC 2389 (16 May 2013) Where EWURA's Board makes a substantive decision, the aggrieved party must appeal to the Fair Competition Tribunal, not seek prerogative orders. Administrative law – statutory appeal vs prerogative orders – whether EWURA Board decisions are appealable to the Fair Competition Tribunal under s29(1). Administrative law – delegated decisions – internal review committee (s27(3)) and right of appeal to FCT. Procedure – improper resort to prerogative orders where statutory appeal remedy exists.	16 May 2013
JM and PR Limited vs Amelia Njenga (Land Case No. 145 of 2009) [2013] TZHC 2419 (15 May 2013) Court refused adjournment sine die and, under Section 95 CPC, granted a limited adjournment to enable prosecution. Civil procedure — Adjournment sine die — Appropriateness where plaintiff resides abroad and has allegedly failed to prosecute — Court’s discretion under Section 95 Civil Procedure Code. Failure to prosecute vs. readiness to pursue counterclaim — weighing opposing parties’ interests when deciding adjournment. Right of appeal explained.	15 May 2013
AAR Health Services Ltd vs K.B Medicare Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2010) [2013] TZHC 2273 (10 May 2013) An appeal filed after the 30-day statutory period is time-barred and will be dismissed absent an extension application. Civil procedure — Appeal — Limitation period — Thirty-day time limit for appeals from Magistrates' Courts (s.25(1)(b) Magistrates' Courts Act) — Appeal filed late — No extension application — Dismissal as time-barred — Law of Limitation Act s.3(1)(b) — Duty of diligence.	10 May 2013
Quality Group Limited vs Tanzania Building Agency (Civil Case No. 135 of 2003) [2013] TZHC 2266 (9 May 2013) Plaintiff breached the lease by failing to commence rehabilitation; defendant rightly refused approval for demolition and terminated the contract. Contract/Lease – interpretation of "rehabilitation" v. "redevelopment" – meaning derived from text and parties' conduct. Contract performance – obligation to commence works within contractual time; failure to do so constitutes breach. Variation of contract – party proposing change (demolition and new construction) cannot treat refusal as breach where original terms required rehabilitation. Remedies – termination justified where lessee fails to perform as agreed; claim for damages not established.	9 May 2013
Raphael Moshi and Others vs Attorney General and Another (Misc. Civil Application No. 70 of 2009) [2013] TZHC 2418 (9 May 2013) Application for prerogative orders struck out for wrong statutory citation and being time-barred. Administrative law – prerogative orders – leave to apply for certiorari and mandamus – correct statutory provision (s.19(3) of Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act) – wrong citation renders application incompetent – limitation period – six months – time-barred applications – striking out – costs each party to bear.	9 May 2013
Raphael Moshi and Others vs Attorney General and Another (Misc. Civil Application No. 70 of 2009) [2013] TZHC 2522 (9 May 2013) Application for leave to seek prerogative orders was incompetent and time‑barred for wrong statutory citation and late filing. Judicial review – prerogative orders – leave to apply for certiorari and mandamus – correct statutory basis (s.19(3) of Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act) required. Procedural law – competence – wrong citation of statutory provision renders application incompetent. Limitation – time‑bar – leave applications for prerogative relief must be filed within six months (s.19(3)). Civil procedure – preliminary objection – unopposed dispositive objections may dispose of an application.	9 May 2013
Wilfred Lwakatare and Another vs Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 14 of 2013) [2013] TZHC 2545 (8 May 2013) DPP’s withdrawal to correct registration was lawful, but terrorism counts lacked requisite particulars and were struck out. Nolle prosequi – exercise of DPP powers – High Court supervision and revision – prima facie tangible evidence required to impugn DPP; National Prosecution Service Act principles (public interest, prevention of abuse); jurisdictional error (wrong register) may justify withdrawal; Sufficiency of charge particulars – Prevention of Terrorism Act definition of "meeting" (three or more persons); failure to particularise terrorist purpose – striking out counts.	8 May 2013
Zuberi Mbonea Paulo Mtangi vs Elton Victus Mahenge (Land Case No. 319 of 2009) [2013] TZHC 2417 (6 May 2013) Plaintiff lacked locus standi as administrator where pleadings and record showed no prior appointment; suit struck out with costs. Locus standi – capacity to sue as administrator – requirement to plead and prove appointment by competent court – timing of appointment vis-à-vis filing – preliminary objection – striking out suit with costs.	6 May 2013
National Bank of Commerce Limited vs Roderick Simon (Commercial Appeal No. 6 of 2012) [2013] TZHC 2637 (3 May 2013) Respondent failed to strictly prove special damages for detained title deed; speculative award quashed. Special damages — must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; detention of title deed — causal link and quantification required; restitution integrum; appellate intervention where award speculative.	3 May 2013
Wilfred Lwakatare and Another vs Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 14 of 2013) [2013] TZHC 2493 (3 May 2013) DPP’s withdrawal and refiling justified by wrong registration; terrorism counts defective and struck out for insufficient particulars. Criminal procedure – Nolle Prosequi – standard to impugn DPP’s exercise of discontinuance powers – prima facie tangible evidence required to show abuse or forum‑shopping. Jurisdiction – offences under Prevention of Terrorism Act triable by the High Court; subordinate court cannot try such offences (committal only). Charges and particulars – s.132 CPA requires sufficient particulars; ‘meeting’ under Prevention of Terrorism Act requires three or more persons; defective particulars render counts liable to be struck out. Relief – striking out defective terrorism counts while leaving DPP option to proceed on remaining competent charge.	3 May 2013