|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2007 |
|
|
Applicant entitled to repayment after respondent breached agreement by failing to allot agreed shareholding.
* Commercial law – contract/investment – funds advanced for shareholding in new company – failure to issue/transfer share certificates – breach of implied terms – restitution and interest awarded.
|
16 November 2007 |
| October 2007 |
|
|
A civil revision arising from affiliation proceedings abates upon the death of the respondent.
* Civil procedure – Affiliation proceedings – Effect of death of a party – Abatement of cause of action.
* Civil procedure – Analogy to tort and defamation – causes of action abating on death.
* Precedent – Reliance on Saidi Kibwana & Another v Rose Jumbe [1993] TLR 175.
|
25 October 2007 |
|
High Court cannot order bail or direct a magistrate to grant bail in matters not yet before it; application premature.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Jurisdiction – Section 148(3) Criminal Procedure Act – High Court may order bail only in matters before it – Application premature where accused not committed – Judicature and Application of Laws Act inapplicable to confer absent magistrates' powers.
|
8 October 2007 |
|
Competence of an appointee liquidator under a consultancy agreement and requirement to correct a defective plaint verification.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections – locus standi of liquidator appointed by consultant under liquidation consultancy agreement; notice to Registrar as evidence of appointment; verification of pleadings – Order VI r.15(2) CPC requirement to specify what is from personal knowledge and what is on information; curability of defective verification by amendment; abandonment of unargued objections.
|
5 October 2007 |
| September 2007 |
|
|
A decree must bear the date of pronouncement of the judgment/ruling; otherwise the appeal is incompetent and struck out.
Civil Procedure – Decree must bear the date on which judgment or ruling was pronounced (O. XX r.7 Civil Procedure Code, 1966); improperly dated decree renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; rule applies to drawn orders extracted from rulings as well as decrees from judgments.
|
12 September 2007 |
| August 2007 |
|
|
Correspondence plus performance formed a binding bitumen supply contract; late/short delivery breached time‑essential terms, damages awarded.
Contract — formation by correspondence and performance — bank guarantee as consideration — terms: 59 containers of bitumen 60/70; deliveries 12 containers every 10 days from 11/5/2004; time of essence — defendant breached for late/short delivery — plaintiff awarded special damages; defendant awarded unpaid invoices; demurrage claims dismissed for lack of proof.
|
3 August 2007 |
| July 2007 |
|
|
Court ordered consolidation of two related actions to avoid multiplicity and give effect to Court of Appeal directions.
* Civil procedure — Consolidation of suits — Inherent jurisdiction to consolidate where no statutory provision — Criteria: common questions of law or fact, avoidance of multiplicity and conflicting decisions, convenience and justice — Compliance with Court of Appeal directions.
* Arbitration — Parallel arbitral award and domestic proceedings — Effect on related court actions and need for coordinated determination.
* Companies — Winding‑up proceedings and procedural numbering (Companies (Winding‑Up) Rules) considered but not decisive against consolidation.
|
31 July 2007 |
|
Denial of bail for armed robbery under section 148(5)(a) lacks procedural safeguards and violates Article 15(2)(a).
Constitutional law — Personal liberty: denial of bail for armed robbery under section 148(5)(a) — lacks 'procedure prescribed by law' and is arbitrary; not saved by Article 30(2). Criminal procedure — Disclosure: section 9(3) restricting pre-trial access to witness statements does not violate right to fair hearing given practical and security constraints. Criminal procedure — Delay: section 225(4) adjournment/certificate regime not per se inconsistent with Article 107A(2)(b); magistrates must enforce limits; provisions apply to armed robbery. Article 30(5) invoked to permit legislative rectification (18 months).
|
13 July 2007 |
|
Application to amend and revisit court judgment dismissed as time-barred where no extension of time was sought.
Civil Procedure - Limitation of actions - application under ss.68(c), 95 & 96 Civil Procedure Act - Law of Limitation Act Part III First Schedule Item 1 - application filed out of 60-day period - no enlargement of time sought; Preliminary objection - court improperly moved; Reliefs seeking amendment/striking of judgment amounting to attempt to revisit court's own judgment (appeal/revision) - procedure not recognised.
|
10 July 2007 |
|
High Court has jurisdiction over the land appeal filed after the Land Disputes Courts Act, but finalisation requires Chief Justice's extension.
* Land law – jurisdiction of High Court to hear appeals from district courts – reliance on s.183(1) Land Act and s.4(1) Land Disputes Courts Act. * Procedural requirement – necessity of Chief Justice's extension under s.54(4) Cap.216 before substantive finalisation of appeal.
|
3 July 2007 |
|
A claim for unpaid terminal benefits arising from termination is a trade dispute outside the High Court's original jurisdiction.
• Labour law – trade dispute: claim for unpaid salaries/terminal benefits arising from termination falls within definition of trade dispute under Industrial Court of Tanzania Act.
• Jurisdiction: Industrial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over trade disputes; High Court lacks original jurisdiction to hear such matters.
• Procedure: late written submissions filed without leave are inadmissible.
|
3 July 2007 |
| May 2007 |
|
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause for extension of time to seek leave to appeal; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure — extension of time — sufficient cause required to extend time to seek leave to appeal — absence at delivery of judgment not per se sufficient — applicant’s history of defaults and inadequate affidavit evidence relevant to discretion — costs awarded to respondent.
|
29 May 2007 |
|
Whether a complaint letter can invoke Advocates Committee jurisdiction and whether it could order a TSh25,000,000 refund; letter sufficed, refund quashed.
* Advocates disciplinary procedure – s.13(1)(c) Advocates Act – allegation of misconduct may be instituted by complainant's letter; formal Form No.1 and affidavit not always mandatory.
* Notice and service – copy of complaint letter can satisfy s.13(3)(a) requirements where particulars are disclosed.
* Tribunal powers – Committee may admonish, suspend and order costs/witness expenses (s.13(4),(5)); it cannot order repayment of a plaintiff’s civil claim as a "refund".
* Evidence and default – committee may act on complainant’s and witness evidence where advocate defaults to appear; appellate courts will not admit fresh defences that were available at hearing.
* Sentence review – suspension period is discretionary; absence of mitigation undermines challenge to severity.
|
18 May 2007 |
|
Appellate court unlawfully validated a non-existent power of attorney and decided merits where respondent lacked locus standi.
Locus standi – requirement that plaintiff have legal authority to sue; Power of attorney – admissibility and proof; Retrospective validation – appellate court cannot legalize absence of authority at trial by admitting undocumented power; Affidavit copies – uncertified or not sworn by grantor do not evidence grant of authority; Appellate procedure – limits on going into merits where jurisdictional defect remains.
|
16 May 2007 |
| March 2007 |
|
|
Alleged fraud in obtaining a consent judgment suspends limitation until discovery; application held not time-barred.
* Civil procedure — Consent judgment — Application to set aside consent judgment alleged to have been obtained by fraud.
* Limitation — Law of Limitation Act s.26 — Fraud suspends running of limitation until discovery.
* Evidence — Discovery date established by passport stamp and newspaper evidence.
* Corporate law — Allegation of fraud may justify lifting the corporate veil.
* Procedure — Defective affidavit may be withdrawn and refiled; preliminary objections overruled.
|
30 March 2007 |
| February 2007 |
|
|
Leave to appeal refused because the High Court only held revision inappropriate where an appeal lies; applicant may appeal directly.
* Civil procedure — leave to appeal — leave refused where High Court did not determine the substantive points proposed for appeal.
* Civil procedure — revision v appeal — revision does not lie where there is a right of appeal (MATEMBA v YAMULINGA principle).
* Jurisdiction — whether magistrates’ court may enforce Ministerial decisions and whether High Court leave is required for enforcement (not decided by High Court in this case).
|
22 February 2007 |