|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 2015 |
|
|
Bank obtained ex‑parte judgment for loan default and misrepresentation of collateral, awarding principal, high interest and damages.
Civil procedure – ex‑parte judgment – loan default and misrepresentation of security; Contract/Banking law – breach of loan and overdraft agreements; Remedies – principal, compounded interest, damages for distress and reputation, daily financial loss, costs; Enforcement – attachment/sale of charged property.
|
31 August 2015 |
|
Breach of loan agreement by misrepresentation of security; plaintiff awarded damages, interest and attachment remedy.
Contract law – Loan and overdraft – Breach by default and misrepresentation of collateral; Credibility of bank records, valuation and demand notices; Remedies – damages, compounded contractual interest, costs and attachment/sale of secured property; Civil procedure – substituted service and ex-parte judgment.
|
31 August 2015 |
|
Order XXII Rule 3(1) requires leave before a deceased plaintiff's legal representative is made party to subsequent proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Order XXII Rule 3(1) CPC — legal representative of deceased plaintiff — meaning of "suit" includes subsequent/execution proceedings — leave required before being made a party — non-compliance justifies striking out application.
|
31 August 2015 |
|
An equivocal plea and defective plea-taking procedures rendered the conviction unsafe; conviction quashed and immediate release ordered.
Criminal law – Plea-taking – Equivocal/ambiguous plea of guilty – Procedural requirements for reading facts and proper allocutus – Sentencing reserved before conviction – When conviction is unsafe and retrial is inappropriate due to time served.
|
31 August 2015 |
|
High Court lacked original pecuniary jurisdiction; specific monetary claim (TZS 50m) determines jurisdiction, so suit struck out.
Civil procedure — Pecuniary jurisdiction — Determination by substantive (specific) claim, not quantified general damages; Magistrates' Courts Act s.40(2); Our Lady of Usambara applied — Defamation actions not per se within High Court original jurisdiction where specific claim falls below statutory threshold.
|
28 August 2015 |
|
Defendant wrongly repossessed without prior written notice; both parties breached the MLA; plaintiff awarded value of stock (Tshs.14,000,000/=?).
Contract law – Marketing Licence Agreement – Mandatory written notice for termination – Repossession and stock‑taking requirements; Proof of special and expectation damages – requirement for contemporaneous accounting records; Breach for failure to meet minimum purchase volumes; Relief limited to proven value of stock taken over.
|
28 August 2015 |
|
Court awards plaintiff USD 670,000 for fuel supplied; defendant’s forgery and guarantor defence rejected.
Civil procedure – contract for supply of fuel; dishonoured postdated cheques as proof of indebtedness; corporate veil/guarantor issues; forged document (handwriting expert evidence); remedies – judgment for debt, interest and costs.
|
27 August 2015 |
|
|
21 August 2015 |
|
Temporary injunction dismissed: wrong registry filing and failure to meet Attilio v. Mbowe injunction requirements.
Civil procedure – Temporary injunction – Requirements in Attilio v. Mbowe (serious question; irreparable injury; balance of convenience) – Maintainability — filing in correct registry for land matters – Prior sale and possession and substantial respondent investments as grounds to refuse interim relief.
|
21 August 2015 |
|
Court found equal contributory negligence, dismissed unproven special damages, awarded subsistence and general damages with interest.
Tort — Negligence — Contributory negligence — Equal apportionment of liability where employee with supervisory control failed to take precautions and employer failed to replace worn rails; Workmen's Compensation Act — effect of prior compensation payment and burden to prove inadequacy; Special damages — requirement of strict proof.
|
21 August 2015 |
|
Both plaintiff and employer were contributorily negligent; specific damages were not strictly proved, but subsistence and general damages awarded.
Negligence – contributory negligence where both employee (Permanent Way Inspector) and employer share responsibility for accident. Workmen's Compensation Act – interplay between statutory compensation and civil claims; requirement to prove calculations and entitlement. Damages – special (specific) damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; general damages may be awarded for pain and suffering. Evidence – accident reports and medical records relevant but insufficient to displace a prior compensation payment without supporting proof of calculation.
|
21 August 2015 |
|
An application supported by an affidavit containing legal arguments and prayers is incurably defective and will be struck out.
Civil Procedure – Affidavit admissibility – Order XIX r.3 CPC – Affidavits must state facts, not legal argument or prayers; Application for temporary injunction struck out where supporting affidavit incurably defective; Reliance on Uganda v. Commissioner of Prisons ex parte Matovu [1966] E.A.
|
21 August 2015 |
|
Administrator’s letters revoked for failure to file inventory and mismanagement; heir appointed as new administrator.
Probate law – Revocation of letters of administration – Grounds include failure to file inventory and mismanagement/squandering of estate; Appointment of heir as replacement administrator; Court power to order surrender of letters and delivery of estate property.
|
18 August 2015 |
|
The plaintiff proved loss from a ministerial policy reversal; court awarded reduced damages and restored the original sisal-bag directive.
Administrative law – Ministerial directives affecting industry; reliance on regulatory directives and economic loss; mitigation of loss; quantum of damages; declaratory relief nullifying later directive and restoring earlier policy.
|
18 August 2015 |
|
A petition under the Arbitration Act need not be accompanied by a separate verifying affidavit; preliminary objection dismissed.
Arbitration Act and Rules – petitions – verification – whether a separate verifying affidavit is required; interpretation of procedural rules; application of Judicature and Application of Laws Act s.2(3) to cure alleged lacunae; competence of petition verified like a plaint; dismissal of preliminary objection.
|
17 August 2015 |
|
Plaintiff's suit struck out as res judicata because the same cause had been finally decided by the lower court.
Civil procedure – Res judicata – Section 9 Civil Procedure Code – finality of judgment and bar to multiplicity of suits. Jurisdiction – Land Act s.167 – what constitutes a land dispute; security over land does not necessarily convert contractual claims into land disputes. Procedure – Preliminary objections – Order VIII Rule 2 – separate filing permissible where objection raises jurisdictional/vital legal points.
|
17 August 2015 |
|
Court granted extension, holding 90-day appeal period starts on receipt of certified judgment copy.
Limitation law – appeals under the Civil Procedure Code – 90-day limitation period (Part II item 1, Law of Limitation Act). Computation of time – exclusion of period awaiting certified copy – section 19(2) Law of Limitation Act. Extension of time – discretionary relief – requirement of good and sufficient cause; promptness and explanation for delay relevant. Civil Procedure – interplay between Law of Limitation Act and right to appeal.
|
17 August 2015 |
|
Court struck out and dismissed repeated land claim as precluded by Order 23 and time‑barred.
Land law; abuse of process; preclusion under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC; limitation—Part I item 22 Law of Limitation Act; undivided registered parcel and section 83 Land Registration Act; court’s power to curb vexatious litigation (section 95 CPC).
|
17 August 2015 |
|
Plaintiff’s repetitive suit on an undivided registered plot is precluded, time‑barred and an abuse of process.
Civil Procedure – preclusion under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC; Limitation – Part I item 22 Law of Limitation Act; Abuse of process – repetitive suits dismissed; Land law – requirement to divide registered parcel under s.83 Land Registration Act before claiming part thereof.
|
17 August 2015 |
|
Preliminary objection that appeal was time‑barred dismissed; memorandum filed within time when waiting period for certified copy excluded.
Limitation of actions – appeal time‑bar – application of Law of Limitation Act section 19(2) (discounting time awaiting certified copy) – institution of appeal when memorandum filed under section 3(2)(b) – preliminary objection dismissed with costs.
|
14 August 2015 |
|
Unexplained delay and uncorroborated counsel omission do not constitute sufficient cause to extend time to appeal.
Extension of time – discretionary power under section 11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – requirement to show sufficient cause – unexplained delay and lack of corroborating affidavits fatal – advocate’s duty as officer of court – merits of intended appeal not decisive.
|
13 August 2015 |
|
Court granted 14-day extension to file Notice of Appeal, finding a technical defect constituted good cause.
Appellate procedure – extension of time – section 11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – requirement to show good cause. 'Technical delay' where an appeal lodged in time is struck out for defective/incomplete record can constitute good cause for extension. Standard of assessment – objective inquiry into whether sufficient cause exists; prompt institution of application supports relief.
|
7 August 2015 |
|
Court granted 14-day extension where appeal was struck out for defective record, treating the delay as technical good cause.
Appellate procedure – Extension of time under s.11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Good cause and objective discretion – Technical delay where appeal rendered incompetent by defective record (Fortunatus Masha principle) – Striking out by Court of Appeal for incomplete record – Relevance of collateral complaints about estate administration.
|
7 August 2015 |
|
Court granted 14‑day extension to file notice of appeal where appeal was struck out for defective record, finding good cause.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Section 11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — Technical delay where appeal struck out for defective/incomplete record — Good cause requirement — Prompt institution of extension application — Jurisdictional limits concerning administration of deceased estate.
|
7 August 2015 |
|
Application dismissed for want of prosecution was restored where the advocate’s absence constituted sufficient cause and opposing counsel suppressed material facts.
Civil procedure – restoration of suit dismissed for want of prosecution – Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC – sufficient cause for non-appearance; Advocates’ duties – disclosure and honesty – section 66 Advocates Act; Role of court clerks – facilitators not substitutes for advocates; Effect of opposing counsel’s failure to rebut allegations; Jurisdictional argument where notice of appeal filed.
|
7 August 2015 |
|
Failure to appear caused by counsel’s engagements and bereavement, coupled with rival counsel’s concealment, constituted sufficient cause to restore the suit.
Civil procedure — restoration of suit dismissed for want of prosecution — sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC; Advocates’ duties — section 66 Advocates Act — duty not to mislead court; distinction between deliberate absenteeism and excusable non-appearance; role and limits of court clerks in communicating advocates’ excuses.
|
7 August 2015 |
|
Court restored application dismissed for want of prosecution, finding sufficient cause and criticizing opposing advocate’s nondisclosure.
Civil procedure – restoration of suit dismissed for want of prosecution – Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC – sufficiency of cause; Advocates’ duties – section 66 Advocates Act – duty of candour to court; conduct of opposing counsel – suppression/concealment; role of court clerks – facilitative not substitutive; jurisdiction – prior notice of appeal does not automatically oust High Court power to restore.
|
7 August 2015 |
|
Lack of notice of an ex‑parte hearing/judgment can constitute sufficient reason to extend time to appeal.
Civil procedure — Extension of time to appeal — Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act — Failure to give notice of ex‑parte hearing/judgment — Breach of Order 20 Rule 1 CPC — Alleged illegality/procedural irregularity as sufficient reason to extend time.
|
7 August 2015 |
|
Extension granted where trial court failed to notify defendant of ex‑parte hearing and judgment.
Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act – requirement of sufficient cause – failure to notify defendant of ex‑parte hearing and judgment – breach of Order 20 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code – discovery during execution – illegality/irregularity as ground for extension.
|
7 August 2015 |
|
An affidavit with an undated, incomplete jurat is incurably defective and renders the supported application incompetent.
Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act, s.8 – jurat of attestation must state place, date and whether Commissioner knew or identified the deponent. Affidavit formalities – failure to state date or identification particulars renders jurat incurably defective. Civil procedure – preliminary objection – defective affidavit supporting interlocutory application – consequence is striking out the application.
|
5 August 2015 |
|
Application for injunction struck out because supporting affidavit’s jurat failed statutory requirements and was incurably defective.
Oaths and affidavits – Jurat of attestation – Requirement to state place and date and whether Commissioner knew deponent personally (s.8, Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act, Cap 12 R.E.2002) – Non‑compliance renders affidavit incurably defective – Application struck out.
|
5 August 2015 |
|
Court ordered forced entry and inventory of respondent's shop to execute prior order after non-compliance.
Execution of judgment – appointment of auctioneers – forcible entry and inventory of goods – enforcement of prior court order – misnaming of party not fatal to execution – ex parte execution permitted where respondent absent.
|
4 August 2015 |