|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2015 |
|
|
Dismissal for non-appearance set aside where parties were not served notice after judge reassignment; case restored.
Civil procedure – Order IX Rule 9(1) CPC – Setting aside dismissal for non-appearance – Lack of service/notice following reassignment of presiding judge – Defaults authored by court administration as 'good cause'.
|
27 November 2015 |
|
Extension of time denied where appellant failed to account for delay and did not prove an installment agreement.
Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – requirement to account for delay – alleged payment by installments not proven – execution after failure to pay – discretion of appellate court to dismiss application for want of sufficient cause.
|
27 November 2015 |
|
Primary Court had jurisdiction, conducted a proper hearing, and asset division (with valuation/buy‑out option) complied with s.114(2).
Matrimonial law – jurisdiction of Primary Court under s.18(1)(b) Cap 11 and s.76 Cap 29 – division of matrimonial assets – s.114(2) Law of Marriage Act (needs of infant children; equality) – judicial care in matrimonial proceedings – valuation and buy-out option for matrimonial home.
|
27 November 2015 |
|
Court upheld armed robbery convictions based on reliable eyewitness ID and corroborating cautioned statements despite parade deficiencies.
Criminal law – armed robbery – visual identification (Waziri Amani) – unreliable identification parade where PF186 absent – admission and weight of cautioned statements/retracted confessions – doctrine of recent possession – proof of ownership and recovery of stolen property.
|
27 November 2015 |
|
Representative-suit application struck out because applicants failed to produce written, signed authority as required by Order I Rule 12(2).
Civil procedure – Representative suit – Order I Rules 8 and 12 – written, signed authority required and must be filed in court – photocopied list insufficient. Temporary injunction – invoked where no suit exists – preliminary objection on citation of enabling provisions left undecided after representative claim struck out
|
24 November 2015 |
|
Board decisions extending skeleton staff tenure without PSRC approval entitled employees to unpaid salaries and damages.
Labour law – entitlement to remuneration for work performed beyond retained term; corporate governance – effect of subsidiary Boards' resolutions and whether PSRC approval required; damages for non-payment of salaries and award of interest and costs.
|
24 November 2015 |
|
Time-bar is jurisdictional: out-of-time review filed without extension dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Review – Limitation period – Review application must be filed within 30 days (Law of Limitation Act Cap. 89) – filing one day late renders application incompetent unless extension sought and granted. Preliminary objections – Notice – While notice of preliminary objections is good practice, issues going to jurisdiction (such as time bar) may be considered without prior notice
Jurisdiction – Time bar affects jurisdiction and the court may raise or entertain it suo moto or when raised without notice
|
20 November 2015 |
|
Insufficient and unsafe visual identification plus an improperly recorded cautioned statement rendered the conviction unsustainable.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification at night – factors required for reliable identification (lighting, distance, duration, prior knowledge) and need for identification parade where identity in issue; Evidence – Admissibility – improperly recorded cautioned statement must be expunged; Proof – burden remains on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial facts (hiding in relative's house) insufficient alone.
|
20 November 2015 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove conditions precedent to bond claims; surety not liable and claim dismissed with costs.
Construction contract; Advance payment bond and Performance bond; surety liability; conditions precedent: proof of advance payment, notice/declaration of default certified by registered engineer, compliance with employer’s obligations and claims procedures; claimant’s failure to mitigate losses; default judgment against contractor.
|
20 November 2015 |
|
Appellate court upheld conviction based on reliable identification and admissible retracted cautioned statement, dismissing the appeal.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – visual identification by victims who were ordered to lie down – reliability and corroboration by identification parade. Identification parade – compliance with Police General Order (P.G.O
No.232) – collateral corroboration of dock identification (Exh.P2)
Evidence – retracted cautioned statement – admissibility after inquiry into voluntariness and corroborative value (Exh.P1); Section 29 Evidence Act. Appellate procedure – conviction under s.366(1)(a)(ii) and affirmation of trial sentence. Minor inconsistencies between witnesses do not necessarily defeat prosecution case
|
20 November 2015 |
|
A bank that pays on forged or discrepant cheques without adequate verification is liable; an unsupported large general damages award was reduced.
Banking law — Banker-customer relationship — Duty to verify genuineness of cheques — Payment on forged or discrepant signatures without proof of proper confirmation attracts liability
Evidence — Electronic/telephone confirmation — bank must prove verification (e.g., call records) when relying on telephonic confirmation. Estoppel by negligence — banker cannot rely on customer's carelessness unless customer induced the bank to pay
Damages — General damages require evidential basis and reasons; unsupported awards may be set aside and substituted
Interest — Trial court's interest awards upheld as reasonable
|
16 November 2015 |
|
Applicant failed to show irreparable loss or inadequate remedy at law; injunction dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Temporary injunction – requirements: serious triable issue; irreparable injury; balance of convenience – inadequacy of damages must be specifically demonstrated; mere assertions insufficient (Attilio v Mbowe; Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v COGECOT).
|
13 November 2015 |
|
An application is incompetent if the enabling rule or specific sub‑rule is wrongly cited or not specified.
Civil Procedure – setting aside dismissal for want of prosecution – necessity to cite the correct enabling provision and specific sub‑rule; wrong citation or non‑citation renders application incompetent; Order IX Rules 3, 4, 9 CPC; Article 107A(2)(e) – limitation on technicalities cannot cure defective citation.
|
13 November 2015 |
|
Suit was incompetent for suing the wrong legal person; trial proceedings, judgment and decree quashed.
Local government law — Proper party to suit under section 12(1) Local Government (District Authorities) Act — Misjoinder of party renders suit incompetent; Civil Procedure — Order I Rule 10(2) — Amendment of parties is for trial court, not appellate court; Procedural fairness — Late raising of improper-party point does not preclude fair hearing where rejoinder was afforded.
|
13 November 2015 |
|
Night-time visual and voice identification without essential particulars is unreliable; conviction quashed for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night; torchlight observations; voice recognition – reliability and Waziri Amani factors (time, distance, lighting, prior acquaintance); failure to name suspect at earliest opportunity undermines credibility; conviction unsafe where prosecution fails to eliminate possibilities of mistaken identity.
|
13 November 2015 |
|
A defective jurat on the applicant’s affidavit rendered the extension application incompetent and it was struck out.
Civil procedure – extension of time – competency of supporting affidavit – jurat must disclose identification or personal knowledge of deponent by Commissioner for Oaths; defective affidavit renders application incompetent. Procedural law – preliminary objections – where foundational affidavit is fatally defective, other objections need not be considered. Limitation questions and Court of Appeal procedural rules raised but not adjudicated due to affidavit defect
|
13 November 2015 |
|
A jurat‑defective affidavit renders an application incompetent and will result in the application being struck out.
Civil procedure – competence of application – affidavit jurat – requirement to state identification to Commissioner for Oaths; defective jurat renders supporting affidavit incurably defective and application incompetent. Civil procedure – preliminary objections – competency issues go to root and need determination before other objections
Limitation – objection that extension applications must comply with Law of Limitation (item 21 Part III) and Court of Appeal Rules on lodgement of record
|
13 November 2015 |
|
A chamber application supported by an affidavit with a defective jurat is incompetent and will be struck out.
Limitation Act – time-bar objections; Civil Procedure – omnibus applications; Court of Appeal Rules – prematurity of record application; Affidavit formalities – defective jurat/identification to Commissioner for Oaths; Defective affidavit renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
13 November 2015 |
|
A defective jurat on the applicant’s affidavit rendered the application incompetent and led to its striking out.
Civil procedure – extension of time – application for extension to file Notice of Appeal and record of appeal – competency of supporting affidavit – defective jurat/identification to Commissioner for Oaths – affidavit rendered incurably defective – application struck out. Limitation law – time bar and exclusion principles raised but not determined after finding affidavit defective
|
13 November 2015 |
|
Contempt application dismissed; enforcement of final orders requires execution proceedings and shareholder changes negated alleged contempt.
Civil procedure – enforcement of final orders – execution under Order XXI (rules 9 and 10) is the appropriate route for relief and for invoking contempt jurisdiction. Contempt of court – quasi‑criminal power – to be exercised sparingly; burden of proof higher than civil standard. Incorrect procedure – chamber summons citing Penal Code s.124 and CPC s.68 not proper for enforcing final substantive orders. Company law – shareholders’ lawful appointment of interim board/management can displace earlier reinstatement orders affecting corporate authority
|
11 November 2015 |
|
District Court lacked jurisdiction over estate distribution; its proceedings were nullified and the appeal struck out.
Jurisdiction – Probate and Administration of Estates – Distribution of deceased’s estate – Primary Court powers and Administrator’s role – District Court lacked jurisdiction – Proceedings and ruling nullity – High Court’s revisionary powers under s.44(1)(b) to quash and set aside – Appeal incompetent.
|
10 November 2015 |
|
Contempt application dismissed: wrong procedure and no contempt where shareholders lawfully changed company management.
Contempt — civil enforcement of final orders — proper procedure is by execution (Order XXI) not by automatic criminalisation via affidavit; Penal Code s124 and CPC s68 limited to specific contexts; contempt jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly; subsequent lawful shareholder actions can render prior reinstatement orders inapplicable.
|
9 November 2015 |
|
Leave to appeal granted where dismissal of restoration application engaged several substantive legal issues.
Civil procedure — leave to appeal — restoration of dismissed suit — whether issues of right to choice of advocate, proof and practicability of producing a death certificate, and evidentiary value of an air ticket without a boarding pass were involved in the High Court's refusal to restore the case.
|
9 November 2015 |
|
Trial court erred by raising a point of law suo motu and striking out the suit without hearing the parties; matter remitted for rehearing.
Civil procedure – point of law raised suo motu at judgment stage – right to be heard – trial court ought to invite parties to address point before making a finding; Defamation – sufficiency of pleadings to disclose cause of action; Remittal – rehearing before a different magistrate where procedural irregularity occurred.
|
9 November 2015 |
|
Leave to appeal dismissed for failure to comply with Court of Appeal filing order and for causing delay.
Appeal — leave to appeal — requirement to comply with Court of Appeal directions — failure to file within prescribed time — non-compliance as abuse/delay of justice — dismissal with costs.
|
9 November 2015 |
|
High Court has jurisdiction over the land dispute; offensive pleadings or omission of representative capacity are curable, objections overruled.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections – jurisdiction of High Court over land disputes – sections 167 Land Act and 37(a) Land Disputes Courts Act
Pleadings – Order VI r.3 CPC – distinction between pleadings and evidence; remedy for improper paragraphs is amendment or striking out (Order VI r.16)
Parties – locus standi and capacity to be sued – omission to sue a defendant in their representative capacity curable under Order I r.10(2) CPC. Res judicata – preliminary objection overruled where prior probate decisions do not bar adjudication of competing land ownership claims
|
3 November 2015 |