|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2012 |
|
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause for a ten‑month delay; extension of time refused and application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – extension of time – applicant must show sufficient cause to extend statutory 30‑day period to apply to set aside dismissal; delay of ten months unexplained – lack of notice and uncooperative advocate insufficient; duty on litigant to follow up prosecution of application.
|
18 December 2012 |
|
A bill of costs must be filed within 60 days; late filings without leave are incompetent and will be quashed.
Civil procedure – Bill of costs – limitation period – Item 21 Part III First Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act – 60 days; Filing out of time — need for leave/extension; Section 3 Law of Limitation Act — late applications liable to be dismissed; Review/quash of Taxing Officer's decision where application time-barred.
|
14 December 2012 |
|
An unappealed criminal conviction under Evidence Act s.43A conclusively established negligence; court awarded Tshs 75,000,000/= general damages.
* Evidence Act s.43A – Final criminal conviction taken as conclusive evidence in related civil proceedings. * Tort — Negligence — Death by dangerous driving — Criminal conviction used to establish civil liability. * Assessment of damages for loss of breadwinner — requirement for particulars and reasonable quantification. * Civil procedure — substituted service and ex parte hearing where defendant not personally served.
|
14 December 2012 |
|
An appeal accompanied by a drawn order that does not reflect the ruling is incompetent and is struck out.
Civil procedure — Drawn order must reflect the ruling — Defective drawn order accompanying memorandum of appeal renders appeal incompetent; appeal struck out. Procedural law — Order XL r.2 & Order XXXIX r.1(1) CPC — requirement of drawn order. Appellate jurisdiction — First appellate court cannot amend clerical errors in drawn orders (power belongs to trial court).
|
14 December 2012 |
|
A magistrate may not vary a Minister’s reinstatement order during execution; employer must first refer to the Minister before compensation is ordered.
* Employment law – enforcement of Minister’s orders – execution of reinstatement orders – subordinate court lacks power to vary Minister’s decision during execution. * Security of Employment Act (ss. 41–44; s. 42(5)(b)) – employer’s duty to refer to Minister before statutory compensation. * Procedure – execution proceedings required to enforce Minister/Board decisions; chamber summons inappropriate for reinstatement enforcement.
|
12 December 2012 |
|
Reported
Failure of prosecution to prove dual citizenship or requisite falsity/causal intent led to quashing of convictions and sentences.
Immigration law – citizenship evidence – dual citizenship and renunciation – burden of proof under Immigration Act and Citizenship Act; offence of making false statement to obtain passport – requirement of maker's knowledge and causal effect on official act; sufficiency of birth certificate and parental testimony as proof of citizenship.
|
12 December 2012 |
| November 2012 |
|
|
An appeal against an ex parte tribunal decision is incompetent; the appellant must first apply to set aside the ex parte judgment.
* Civil procedure – Ex parte judgment – Proper remedy is to apply to the trial court to set aside an ex parte judgment before appealing.
* Land Disputes Courts Act – application of Civil Procedure Code to District Land and Housing Tribunal procedure.
* Appeal jurisdiction – High Court will not receive fresh evidence on appeal to decide grounds for setting aside ex parte judgments.
* Procedure – striking out late-filed defence and conducting ex parte hearing where defence filed without leave.
|
30 November 2012 |
|
The High Court granted extension of time and leave to appeal where disputed estate distribution among children from multiple marriages raised arguable points of law.
* Appellate procedure – extension of time – High Court’s jurisdiction under section 11(1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to extend time for applying for leave to appeal.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – sufficiency of reasons for delay (late receipt of Ruling/Drawn Order).
* Probate – intestate succession – distribution among children from multiple marriages and legitimacy – whether issue raises point of law fit for Court of Appeal.
* Leave to appeal – requirement that intended appeal raises matter of general importance, novel point of law, or is prima facie/arguable.
|
30 November 2012 |
|
Court struck out land suit for non-appearance, declined to decide preliminary objections, and ordered costs.
* Civil procedure – withdrawal and amendment of plaint – preliminary objections (no cause of action; time-bar) – court’s discretion to hear objections before allowing withdrawal.
* Civil procedure – non-appearance – adjournments – striking out/expunging suit from court records for failure to prosecute.
* Costs – striking out for non-appearance attracts an order for costs.
|
27 November 2012 |
|
Citing Court of Appeal Rules in the High Court for extension of time is incompetent; application struck out.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – competence of proceedings – application for extension of time.
* Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 10) – scope limited to Court of Appeal; does not properly move High Court for extension of time.
* Law of Limitation Act, s.14(1) – proper provision for seeking extension of time in the High Court.
* Proceedings under wrong provision are incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
21 November 2012 |
|
A suit should not be struck out solely for exceeding its assigned Speed Track; trial may continue.
Civil procedure – Scheduling conference – Speed Track classification – Whether exceeding Speed Track timeframe warrants striking out; Purpose of first pre-trial conference; Discretion to allow departure and continue to trial; Loss of Speed Track due to interlocutory applications, mediation or court congestion does not automatically extinguish suit.
|
7 November 2012 |
|
A dispute arising from a loan secured by mortgage is commercial, not necessarily a land dispute, so the Land Division lacked jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction – Land Division – Whether mortgage/loan disputes constitute land disputes – Pleaded cause of action and reliefs determine jurisdiction – Commercial contract secured by land does not automatically create a land dispute.
|
6 November 2012 |
| October 2012 |
|
|
Whether the Chanika house formed part of the deceased’s estate and was properly included by the Primary Court.
* Administration of estates – inclusion of property – objection proceedings under Primary Courts (Administration of Estates) Rules (Rule 8) – standard of proof (balance of probabilities).
* Evidence – evaluation of witness testimony on ownership and contribution to construction.
* Appellate review – interference with Primary Court factual findings where record supports lower court’s conclusion.
|
31 October 2012 |
|
Both claim and counterclaim dismissed for failure to prove a hiring agreement or outstanding licence fees.
* Contract formation – hire of equipment – parties’ intention after handover and preconditions for hire (written request, technical inspection, agreed rates) – burden of proof on claimant.
* Civil procedure – evidentiary burden and proof on balance of probabilities – isolated payment insufficient to establish ongoing contractual obligation.
* Property seizure – entitlement to seize equipment – requires clear proof of outstanding debt.
* Licence/tonnage fees – counterclaim dismissed for lack of documentary proof and uncertainty over amounts owing.
|
29 October 2012 |
|
A district court must identify legal errors and make substantive corrective orders when exercising revisional jurisdiction, or its ruling is void.
• Magistrates Courts Act (ss.21, 22) – revisional jurisdiction – court may call primary court records to satisfy correctness, legality or propriety; • Revisional orders – must point to errors on face of record and end with corrective orders (confirm, reverse, amend, vary, quash, rehear, or take additional evidence); • Procedural fairness – right to be heard and meaningful reasons required; • Orders based on 'prudence' or non-legal considerations are insufficient; such revisional rulings may be nullities.
|
19 October 2012 |
|
A District Court lacked jurisdiction over an employment suit filed after the transitional period; limitation was excluded due to prior genuine proceedings.
* Labour law – repeal and transitional provisions – effect of 3rd Schedule item 13 on pending disputes; * Jurisdiction – whether District Court may entertain claim under repealed Employment Act after transitional period; * Limitation – application of Law of Limitation Act s.21 to exclude time spent in genuine prior proceedings; * Institutional shift – jurisdiction of Commission for Mediation and Arbitration for pending labour disputes after commencement of new Act.
|
17 October 2012 |
|
The appellant insurer is liable for repair costs and general damages; the trial court’s discretionary award was upheld.
Insurance law – Motor insurance – assessment of repair costs – admissibility and weight of assessor’s report relying on an unproduced quotation; Evidence – balance of probabilities – reliance on repair quotation produced at trial; Damages – general damages for inconvenience – discretionary award by trial court not to be disturbed absent demonstrable error or inordinacy.
|
16 October 2012 |
|
Criminal proceedings for alleged perjury arising from pending civil proceedings are stayed until the civil matter is resolved.
Criminal procedure – Private prosecution – Ex parte leave for private prosecution permissible and formal; truth of impugned statements and motive are matters for trial; District Court jurisdiction affirmed; stay of criminal prosecution ordered pending resolution of related civil proceedings to avoid conflicting decisions.
|
8 October 2012 |
| September 2012 |
|
|
A corporate petitioner must exhaust statutory FCA remedies before invoking the Basic Rights Act to challenge FCC actions.
Constitutional law – presumption of constitutionality of statutes; Administrative law – requirement to exhaust statutory remedies before constitutional petition; Fair Competition Act – availability of appeal to Fair Competition Tribunal (section 61) as adequate remedy; Separation of functions – allegation that section 69(1) concentrates accusatory and adjudicative powers; Retrospectivity – challenge to retrospective merger notification order (not decided due to jurisdictional bar).
|
28 September 2012 |
|
Whether the applicant’s appeal was time‑barred under section 38 Cap.216; late appeal held incompetent and struck out.
* Land law – Appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal (originating from Ward Tribunal) – time limit under section 38(1) Cap.216 – sixty days runs from date of pronouncement of judgment. * Civil procedure – Filing requirements – attachment of judgment/decree not a condition precedent for instituting appeal from Ward Tribunal matters. * Limitation – late appeals without extension render court without jurisdiction – incompetent appeals should be struck out rather than dismissed. * Jurisdiction – court must satisfy itself of competence before entertaining matters on merits.
|
27 September 2012 |
|
High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant stay of execution after a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal is filed.
Arbitration award enforcement; stay of execution pending appeal; Court of Appeal Rules 2009 (rule 11(2), clause (c), rule 3); High Court jurisdiction; Order XXXIX rule 5 CPC; effect of filing Notice of Appeal.
|
6 September 2012 |
| August 2012 |
|
|
An objection to execution fails where the applicant identifies a different property than the one attached and auctioned.
Land law — execution and attachment — objection proceedings under Order XXI CPC — necessity for objector to show interest in the specific property attached — importance of correctly identifying property (surveyed vs unsurveyed) — failure to explain discrepancies results in dismissal of objection.
|
27 August 2012 |
|
Applicant failed to justify delay to set aside a 13‑year‑old High Court judgment; extension and stay applications dismissed.
Limitation Act s.14(1) — extension of time — applicant must account for every day of delay; execution of judgment — stay of execution — necessity of sufficient cause; ex parte judgment — requirement of record; awareness while abroad and conduct (sale of land) relevant to excuse of delay; costs awarded to respondent.
|
22 August 2012 |
|
A trespass claim filed beyond the three-year limitation period is time-barred and the suit dismissed.
Limitation law – trespass (tort) governed by three-year limitation (Item 6, Part I, Schedule, Law of Limitation Act Cap 89 R.E. 2002) – preliminary objection – court will not rely on unpleaded factual matters or prior proceedings for tolling under section 21 when not pleaded – suit dismissed as time-barred.
|
21 August 2012 |
|
Appeal dismissed: appellant failed to prove title or adverse possession; letters of administration do not create land title.
* Land law – proof of title – necessity to establish proprietary link to original owner; letters of administration do not confer title.
* Locus standi – admissibility and standing of family members to give evidence on land transfers.
* Adverse possession – requirement of uninterrupted occupation for requisite statutory period; mere possession allegations insufficient.
* Civil procedure – appeal period – computation from certified copy of judgment.
|
9 August 2012 |
| July 2012 |
|
|
Applicant failed to account for a 19‑month delay; extension refused and application dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time under section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – applicant must account for every day of delay; perfunctory explanations insufficient. * Ex parte judgment – application for revision out of time – resignation of advocate and failure to notify hearing date not adequate reasons for 19-month delay. * Discretionary refusal to extend time – consequences for stay and revision prayers.
|
27 July 2012 |
|
Power of attorney held irrelevant and rejected; witness must testify as witness and plaintiff give personal evidence.
Evidence — admissibility and relevance of power of attorney; locus standi of witness versus representative; procedural fairness where principal is present; trial continuity and examination of witnesses.
|
25 July 2012 |
|
Caution statement and PF-3 improperly admitted; material inconsistencies produced reasonable doubt, appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
* Criminal law – Rape by traditional healer – offence under s.130(3)(d) Penal Code – elements require proof that healer took advantage of client for sexual intercourse. * Evidence – Admissibility of caution statement – voluntariness and court safeguards. * Evidence – Medical Examination Report (PF-3) – requirement under s.240(3) CPA to inform accused of right to call/cross-examine medical witness; non-compliance renders report unreliable. * Proof – Corroboration and material inconsistencies – unexplained discrepancies create reasonable doubt.
|
17 July 2012 |
|
Conviction for cattle theft quashed for inadequate identification evidence and failure to establish appellant's guilty knowledge, and for inadequate trial judgment.
* Criminal law – Theft – Proof of ownership of alleged stolen property – Identification of remains by complainant must be sufficiently specific to link recovered remains to stolen property. * Criminal law – Mens rea – Guilty knowledge: presence at scene and possession of meat insufficient without evidence of knowledge or suspicion the animal was stolen. * Criminal procedure – Judgment requirements – Section 312(1) CPA mandates points for determination, decision thereon and reasons; non-compliance undermines judgment.
|
17 July 2012 |
|
Whether an employment wrongful-termination claim challenging a service contract constitutes a 'trade dispute' exclusively for the Industrial Court.
* Employment / Labour law – trade dispute – whether a wrongful termination and challenge to a service contract amounts to a 'trade dispute' under Industrial Court of Tanzania Act (s.3). * Jurisdiction – exclusive original jurisdiction of Industrial Court over trade disputes (s.15) prevents ordinary courts from entertaining such matters. * Civil procedure – ordinary courts should not hear matters assigned to special forum unless special forum is unavailable.
|
12 July 2012 |
|
Cause of action partly arising in Dar es Salaam makes venue proper; preliminary objection dismissed with costs.
Civil Procedure Code s.18 – forum non conveniens/venue – alternatives of residence, business or cause of action – cause of action partly arising in chosen forum; Preliminary objection – pure point of law decided on pleadings; venue objection dismissed where pleadings show part of cause of action arose in forum.
|
5 July 2012 |
|
Applicant's unexplained delay and lack of diligence, despite summons being issued and served, warranted dismissal of set‑aside application.
Civil procedure — Application to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution — Requirement to show sufficient cause/excusable neglect — Duty to take prompt, proactive steps (written complaints or Registrar approach) — Court records and proof of service undermine unsupported excuses — Delay in bringing relief fatal.
|
2 July 2012 |
|
Documentary sale evidence unsupported by vendor or police testimony insufficient to establish ownership; appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure; proof of ownership – documentary evidence insufficient without testimony of vendor or witnesses; necessity of calling police or other key witnesses where seizure/recovery is central; evaluation of preponderance of evidence in competing possession claims.
|
2 July 2012 |
| June 2012 |
|
|
Whether a claimed public road and obstruction existed — court held no lawful road and dismissed the appeal.
Land law – existence of public road; amendment of survey/plan – statutory approval and notice; evidentiary law – documents produced for identification have no probative value unless tendered and admitted as exhibits; trespass and obstruction – proof on balance of probabilities.
|
29 June 2012 |
|
An executive agency cannot be sued in its name for non‑contractual compensation; proceedings must be against the Government under the Government Proceedings Act.
* Executive Agencies Act s.3(6)(b),(c) – an executive agency may only be sued in its own name in contract; non‑contractual claims must be against the Government/Attorney General under the Government Proceedings Act. * Compensation/demolition claims arising from government projects are non‑contractual. * Requirement of 90 days' notice under the Government Proceedings Act applies where proceedings should have been brought against the Government.
|
25 June 2012 |
|
Preliminary objections for lack of locus standi and cause of action dismissed because factual disputes require evidence, not pure law.
Preliminary objections — locus standi and cause of action — requirements under Mukisa principles — pure point of law versus disputed factual issues — need for evidence before determination.
|
25 June 2012 |
|
Applicant's concession to lateness led to dismissal with costs; a guarantor cannot block sale of secured house despite illness.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – application for leave to appeal time-barred – applicant's concession – dismissal and costs.
* Security for loan – guarantor liability – deposit of title deed – stay of sale refused.
* Urgent/interlocutory relief – medical incapacity and inability to locate debtor insufficient to restrain sale of secured property.
|
18 June 2012 |
|
Appeal dismissed: appellant failed to prove non-delivery and breach of duty due to lack of key witness and insufficient evidence.
Civil procedure – negligence and breach of contract – burden of proof in civil claims – necessity of calling key witness (intended recipient) to prove non-delivery – insufficiency of single-witness evidence and documentary receipt to establish breach.
|
5 June 2012 |
| May 2012 |
|
|
Failure to take pleas at trial commencement under ss.228–229 CPA renders proceedings a nullity; convictions quashed.
Criminal Procedure Act ss.228–229 – mandatory requirement to state substance of charge and take plea at commencement of trial – plea taken at Preliminary Hearing does not satisfy Part VII requirement – omission renders subsequent proceedings nullity; conviction quashed.
|
15 May 2012 |
|
Advocate’s failure to act due to fee demand constituted good cause to extend time for an incarcerated applicant to file appeal.
Criminal procedure — extension of time to file appeal — section 361(2) CPA — "good cause" — advocate’s negligence or insistence on fees — applicability of Limitation Act — incarcerated appellant’s vulnerability to counsel’s inaction.
|
14 May 2012 |
|
After notice of appeal is filed the High Court is functus officio and cannot order demolition or arrest; the chamber application was struck out.
* Civil procedure – appellate jurisdiction – effect of lodging notice of appeal – court becomes functus officio except for leave to appeal; * Execution – High Court not an executing court – cannot order demolition or arrest as execution measures; * Procedure – improper service of chamber summons; * Relief – chamber application struck out for want of jurisdiction.
|
6 May 2012 |
|
Plaintiff’s tort claim accrued at injury and was time‑barred; suit dismissed with costs.
Limitation — tort — three‑year limitation under Law of Limitation Act; accrual at date of injury; medical treatment does not suspend limitation; no continuing wrong; jurisdictional objection unnecessary once time bar established.
|
3 May 2012 |
| April 2012 |
|
|
12‑month limitation for revisional relief runs from each impugned decision; omnibus revision of distinct orders is improper.
Magistrates Courts Act (Cap.11) s.22(4) – Revisional jurisdiction – 12‑month limitation runs from date of each impugned decision; Proceedings defined widely; Revision not alternative to appeal; Omnibus revision of distinct orders by different magistrates improper; Effect of later order does not revive time‑barred challenges where sale already completed.
|
27 April 2012 |
|
Whether a respondent’s disconnection of services breached a court-ordered status quo and constituted civil contempt.
Civil contempt – disobedience of court order – maintenance of status quo pending final determination; Order 37 r.3 (six‑month rule) – effect where parties agree differently; evidential sufficiency of affidavits and circumstantial evidence; enforceability of court orders until set aside; remedies: fine, restoration of services, costs, default imprisonment.
|
23 April 2012 |
|
High Court upheld public auction sale of estate house to resolve persistent acrimony among heirs.
* Probate/administration – dispute among joint administrators – sale of estate property by court broker/public auction to avert acrimony.
* Priority to purchase – occupying heir’s right contingent on capacity to pay and compensating co-heirs.
* Execution – enforcement of trial court sale order upheld on revision.
|
17 April 2012 |
|
Court granted extension to file leave to appeal, treating the application as unopposed due to respondent's non-action.
* Civil procedure — Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal — Application under s.11 Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Rules 43–44 Court of Appeal Rules, s.95 CPA — Non-supply of proceedings as cause for delay — Adverse inference from respondent's non-opposition.
|
17 April 2012 |
|
An appeal from a primary court filed after 30 days without court leave is time‑barred and must be dismissed.
Limitation — Appeals from primary court — s.25(1)(b) Cap.11 and Rule 3 GN.312/1964 — s.19(2) Cap.89 exclusion not automatic for primary court appeals — leave and affidavit required to extend time — time‑barred appeals dismissed under s.3 Cap.89.
|
4 April 2012 |
| March 2012 |
|
|
Court found Chalambe house was purchased pre-marriage so not matrimonial property; jointly acquired assets ordered equally divided.
Family law — Division of matrimonial property — Determination whether property was acquired before marriage or by joint efforts; admissibility/complaint about documentary evidence not shown on record; equitable distribution of jointly acquired assets.
|
28 March 2012 |
|
Plaintiff’s title was unlawful in light of prior judgments restoring the original owner; defendant’s purchase confers ownership; suit dismissed with costs.
Land law – title dispute – prior judgments restoring original owner’s rights; allocations by city council held void until compensation paid; sale by original owner valid; certificate of occupancy issued in contravention of court orders; plaintiff failed to prove ownership on balance of probabilities.
|
12 March 2012 |
|
Speculative conflict-of-interest claims against counsel do not qualify as preliminary objections and are dismissible.
Civil procedure — Preliminary objection — must raise a pure point of law based on ascertained facts and be capable of disposing of the suit (Mukisa test); Advocate-client privilege — Section 134 Evidence Act; Alleged conflict of interest/disqualification of counsel — speculative allegations requiring proof not suitable as preliminary objection.
|
6 March 2012 |