|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2013 |
|
|
An application for leave to appeal filed under the Limitation Act was incompetent and struck out as time-barred.
• Civil procedure – competence of applications – application founded on wrong or inapplicable statutory provision is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
• Limitation – s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act 1971 – does not apply to applications for leave to appeal or to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal where s.43(b) disapplies it.
• Appellate procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Appeal – procedural preconditions and correct statutory basis required.
|
27 December 2013 |
|
The counter-claimant was defamed and unlawfully detained; awarded general damages but punitive damages denied.
Defamation – abusive words ("bastard", "idiot", "foolish") held defamatory when spoken in presence of others; False imprisonment/Unlawful detention – 45-minute confinement in bank store constitutes tort; Damages – general damages awarded, punitive damages require exceptional circumstances; Award of Tshs. 25,000,000/= and costs.
|
23 December 2013 |
|
The plaintiff awarded damages for malicious prosecution after the defendant instigated baseless criminal proceedings.
* Civil torts – Malicious prosecution – Whether defendant’s initiation of criminal proceedings through bank investigators amounted to malice and lack of reasonable and probable cause. * Remedies – general damages for reputational harm, mental suffering, loss of liberty and business loss; interest and costs.
|
13 December 2013 |
|
The applicant (tenant) has no automatic right of first refusal; injunction denied where damages are adequate.
* Civil procedure – interlocutory injunctions – three-part test (serious question, irreparable harm, balance of convenience).
* Public interest – relevant factor within balance of convenience, not an independent overriding principle.
* Property/tenancy – no automatic right of first refusal for sitting tenants absent contractual provision.
* Remedy – where damages are adequate (American Cyanamid principle), injunction will usually be refused.
|
11 December 2013 |
|
Amendment to add specific damages is not an abuse of process and may be allowed where it does not change the cause of action.
Civil procedure – Amendment of plaint – Whether amendment to add specific damages is abuse of process – Does not change cause of action or cause surprise – Amendment permitted; analogy to amendments converting specific performance claim to damages (Indian authority).
|
4 December 2013 |
|
The bank fraudulently misrepresented valuation inducing the plaintiff to overpay; receivers acted as the bank's agents.
Agency of receivers — when bank’s intervention converts receivers into bank’s agents; sale and credit facility interdependence; fraudulent misrepresentation by concealing valuation and pressuring buyer; remedies: refund, general damages and interest.
|
3 December 2013 |
|
Failure to annex a corporate Board resolution is not fatal; court may allow later production with leave.
* Company law – corporate litigant – requirement of Board of Directors' resolution to commence proceedings; * Civil procedure – O. VII r.18(1) – documents not annexed to plaint may be produced later with court's leave; * Preliminary objection – failure to annex resolution not fatal to suit.
|
2 December 2013 |
| November 2013 |
|
|
Court set aside ex parte judgment, finding appellants' non‑appearance excused and trial court orders inconsistent.
Civil procedure – setting aside ex parte judgment; procedural consistency in court orders; adequacy of excuse for non‑appearance (traffic caused by presidential motorcade); effect of failure to serve notice of hearing.
|
26 November 2013 |
|
Properly conducted identification parades and sufficient eyewitness evidence upheld armed robbery convictions; confession not dispositive.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – sufficiency of evidence – eyewitness identification and identification parades – reliability where witnesses had prior opportunity to observe the accused.
* Criminal procedure – identification parade procedure and discrepancies in parade dates – effect on admissibility and weight.
* Criminal procedure – confession/caution statement – voluntariness inquiry and effect of excluding a retracted statement.
* Appeal – whether alleged procedural defects and non-production of certain witnesses vitiate conviction.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Armed robbery conviction substituted to burglary where no evidence of weapon; sentence reduced to fifteen years.
Criminal law – Armed robbery versus burglary – Requirement of proof of weapon for armed robbery – No evidence of a panga; nocturnal forcible entry and demand for money constituted burglary – Appeal substitution of conviction and reduction of sentence.
|
18 November 2013 |
|
Spouse as co-owner may challenge mortgage of matrimonial home without consent; preliminary objections overruled.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections; cause of action – challenge to mortgage of matrimonial home without spouse’s consent; locus standi of spouse/co-owner to sue despite title in spouse’s name; pleadings – O. VII r.1(f) jurisdictional averments need not be in strict chronological order; declaratory relief permitted (CPC s.7(2)); statutory protection of matrimonial home (Land Act s.112(3); Law of Marriage Act s.114).
|
12 November 2013 |
|
|
11 November 2013 |
| September 2013 |
|
|
General, non‑specific denials in a written statement constitute constructive admissions permitting judgment on admission.
Civil procedure — pleadings: Order VIII rr.3–5 — requirement for specific denials; constructive admissions where denials are general — Section 60 Evidence Act; judgment on admissions under Order XII r.4; corporate defendants’ pleading by officer.
|
12 September 2013 |
|
Claim for unauthorised bank account withdrawals is not time‑barred; omission of exact date in plaint is not fatal.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – limitation: cause of action for an account attracts six‑year limitation (Law of Limitation Act, Part I item 12); fraud/unauthorised bank withdrawals characterised as account claim not simple tort; Order VII r.1(e) CPC – requirement to state facts and when cause of action arose is mandatory but may be given liberal interpretation where pleadings otherwise indicate timing; failure to state exact date not fatal where cause of action timing is clear from plaint.
|
6 September 2013 |
|
Suit for specific performance dismissed where seller no longer held title and plaint disclosed no cause of action against purchaser.
Land law – Specific performance – Suit for specific performance not maintainable where seller has already transferred the property and delivered original title documents to a third party; Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Plea of no cause of action where defendant was not party to underlying contract; Transfer of title – Possession of original certificates relevant to maintainability of specific performance claims.
|
2 September 2013 |
|
A plaint may show jurisdiction by factual averments; lease expiry does not defeat an applicant's claim to remove fixtures.
Civil procedure – O. VII r.1(f) CPC – plaint must contain facts showing jurisdiction (not necessarily a separate paragraph); Res judicata / res sub judice – s.8 CPC requires the matter to be directly and substantially in issue in earlier suit; Cause of action – expiry of lease does not defeat a claim for wrongful refusal to allow removal of tenant's property.
|
2 September 2013 |
| August 2013 |
|
|
Delay excused and extension granted where delay resulted from representation by an unqualified person lacking a practising certificate.
Civil procedure – extension of time – application under s.93 CPC – delay caused by counsel’s mistake; general rule that counsel’s inadvertence is not sufficient cause distinguished where representative acted without a practising certificate – unqualified representation cannot be attributed to applicant.
|
23 August 2013 |
| July 2013 |
|
|
High Court has jurisdiction where total claimed damages exceed subordinate courts’ pecuniary limits, despite earlier pre-trial waiver.
Civil procedure – jurisdiction – section 13 Civil Procedure Code – court of lowest grade competent – negligence actions – pecuniary jurisdiction – general damages not per se determinative – estoppel by record at pre-trial conference.
|
31 July 2013 |
|
Extension of time granted where court's failure to effect ordered rectification and prior attempts constituted sufficient cause.
Limitation Act s.14(1) — extension of time — sufficient or reasonable cause shown by repeated attempts to rectify defective decree; rectification versus review; effect of functus officio ruling on available remedies.
|
18 July 2013 |
|
Suit under Order XXI Rule 62 dismissed as premature; plaintiff must first seek relief from the executing court with leave.
Limitation law – Law of Limitation Act s.6(b) and Item 5 Part I First Schedule; Order XXI Rule 57 and Rule 62 – objection proceedings and suits following attachment/execution; premature filing vs time‑barred suits; res judicata – striking out for delay not a decision on merits; remedy – apply to executing court for leave/extension of time.
|
15 July 2013 |
|
High Court stayed appeal proceedings after a criminal Notice of Appeal was filed, as such Notices generally institute appeals and affect jurisdiction.
* Criminal procedure – Notice of Appeal – rule 68(1) Court of Appeal Rules (2009) – effect of Notice in instituting criminal appeal and divesting High Court jurisdiction.
* Civil v criminal procedure – appeal instituted by memorandum (civil) vs Notice (criminal).
* High Court’s residual jurisdiction – matters necessary to perfect appeal (leave/certificate under rule 71).
* Interlocutory order vs final judgment – reserved reasons and competency of appeal; stay of proceedings pending Court of Appeal determination.
|
1 July 2013 |
| June 2013 |
|
|
Alleged illegality in a judgment can constitute sufficient cause to grant extension of time to appeal.
Extension of time – Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.11(1) – allegation of illegality as sufficient cause – illegality need not be proved at extension stage – duty to enable Court of Appeal to determine point.
|
27 June 2013 |
|
Applicant's affidavit lacking disclosed source not automatically invalid; veracity to be tested at hearing.
* Civil procedure – Affidavits – Order XIX r.3(1) CPC – Affidavits must be confined to facts deponent can prove from own knowledge; statements "to the best of one's knowledge" and non‑disclosure of source not automatically fatal; credibility and factual disputes to be resolved at hearing through evidence and cross‑examination.
|
24 June 2013 |
|
Non-joinder of the mortgagor in a mortgage suit affects merits; court ordered amendment to add the mortgagor.
Land law – Mortgage – Order XXXII Rule 1 Civ. Proc. Code – necessity to join mortgagor/registered proprietor in suit relating to mortgaged property; non-joinder affecting merits; amendment to add necessary party preferable to dismissal; preliminary objection as pure point of law (Mukisa Biscuits).
|
21 June 2013 |
| May 2013 |
|
|
A substantive EWURA Board decision is appealable to the Fair Competition Tribunal, not subject to High Court prerogative orders.
Administrative law – EWURA decisions – Distinction between decisions made under delegated authority (subject to Internal Review Committee and appeal to Fair Competition Tribunal) and substantive decisions by the Board – Remedy by statutory appeal under s.29(1) of the EWURA Act; judicial review inappropriate where statutory appeal available.
|
16 May 2013 |
|
A decision by the EWURA Board is appealable to the Fair Competition Tribunal, not subject to High Court prerogative review.
* Administrative law – Judicial review – Whether prerogative orders (certiorari, mandamus) lie against substantive decisions of EWURA Board. * Statutory appeals – EWURA Act s29(1) – appeal to Fair Competition Tribunal for decisions in connection with the Act. * Delegation – Distinction between delegated officer decisions (s27(3) internal review) and Board decisions; route of internal review and appeal.
|
16 May 2013 |
|
Alleged illegality of a judgment does not automatically justify extension of time to seek revision under s.14(1).
* Civil procedure – extension of time – requirement to show sufficient cause under s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act.* Alleged illegality of trial court decision – does not automatically constitute sufficient cause to enlarge time to apply for revision.* Precedent (Valambhia) distinguished where factual and procedural contexts differ.
|
10 May 2013 |
|
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution after appellant’s counsel failed to file court‑ordered written submissions; no costs awarded.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Failure to prosecute – Non‑compliance with court directions to file written submissions – Substituted service and ex parte proceedings – Dismissal for want of prosecution – Costs where respondent absent.
|
10 May 2013 |
|
Plaintiff's demolition-and-rebuild proposal did not excuse failure to commence agreed rehabilitation; suit dismissed with costs.
Contract law – Lease agreement – Interpretation of "rehabilitation" and "redevelopment" – Whether demolition and reconstruction fell within contractual redevelopment – Failure to commence works within contractual time – Termination for breach – No entitlement to damages.
|
9 May 2013 |
| April 2013 |
|
|
The court upheld that the appellant trespassed 3.2 feet into the respondent's land and dismissed the appeal.
Land law – boundary disputes – trespass – encroachment by boundary wall – site inspection by court and assessors – weight of evidence and confirmation of Tribunal finding.
|
29 April 2013 |
|
Conviction for rape of a nine-year-old upheld; procedural voir dire lapse immaterial; sentence corrected to mandatory life imprisonment.
Criminal law – Rape of a child under ten – sufficiency of child’s evidence and corroboration by medical and family testimony; admissibility of PF3 tendered by investigator; non-compliance with s.127 Evidence Act – voir dire; sentencing – mandatory life imprisonment under s.131(3) Penal Code.
|
18 April 2013 |
|
Applicant granted bail where only mentioned by co-accused and prosecution lacked chemist report and value certificate.
Criminal law — Bail pending trial — S.148(5)(a)(iii) Criminal Procedure Act and S.27(1)(b) Drugs Act — Effect of Government Chief Chemist report and Commissioner’s certificate as prerequisite to deny bail — Uncorroborated mention by co-accused insufficient to oust court’s discretion to grant bail.
|
15 April 2013 |
|
Applicants' failure to file court-ordered written submissions amounted to failure to prosecute; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – failure to prosecute – failure to file court-ordered written submissions – application for extension of time dismissed – main application dismissed for want of prosecution – costs awarded.
|
15 April 2013 |
|
Pre-trial speed-track time runs from institution of suit; non-compliance renders the suit improperly before court, but relief to regularize allowed.
* Civil Procedure — Order VIIIA scheduling (speed tracks) — time runs from commencement of suit, not from date of assignment. * Non-compliance with scheduling orders — mandatory adherence and competency of suit. * Court powers — Section 95 CPC discretion to relieve procedural defects; Order VIIIA Rule 4 cannot be used to pre-empt a pending preliminary objection. * Constitutional arguments about procedural technicalities — not a substitute for complying with clear statutory requirements.
|
11 April 2013 |
| March 2013 |
|
|
Challenges to admissibility and medical absence of spermatozoa rejected; totality of evidence proved rape and sentence affirmed.
Criminal law – Rape – Admissibility of evidence – Hearsay vs direct observation; Child witness – competency and voir dire under s.127 Evidence Act; Medical evidence (PF3) – absence of spermatozoa not fatal; Appellate review – credibility assessments rest with trial court; Conviction and sentence affirmed under s.131 Penal Code.
|
24 March 2013 |
|
Ward Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over high-value industrial land; lower tribunals' proceedings and orders were nullified.
Land law – Jurisdiction of Ward Tribunals – Pecuniary limits and statutory/geographical competence – Ward Tribunals not competent to determine high-value industrial land disputes in cities/municipalities – Proceedings and orders of tribunals without jurisdiction are nullities.
|
19 March 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed where exhibits and caution statements were inadmissible, and evidence and corroboration were insufficient.
Criminal procedure – preliminary hearing – s192(3) CPA – memorandum of agreed matters per accused; Evidence – admissibility of exhibits – prosecutor not competent to tender – s127 Evidence Act; Admissibility – caution statements – non-compliance with s50(1)(a)(b) CPA – expunged; Identification – insufficient; Corroboration – confessions of co-accused require corroboration; Absconding on bail not proof of guilt.
|
13 March 2013 |
|
A suit dismissed under O.XXV r.2(1) must be revived by an application under r.2(2), not by filing a fresh suit.
Civil Procedure Code – Order XXV r.2(1) dismissal for failure to furnish security for costs – Remedy is application under r.2(2) to set aside dismissal and seek extension, not instituting a fresh suit; preliminary objection; striking out; costs.
|
11 March 2013 |
|
Court upheld conviction where independent daylight eyewitnesses credibly identified the appellant and alibi documents were discredited.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence – Credibility of eyewitnesses and admissibility/weight of documentary alibi evidence; alibi vs independent eyewitness identification; evaluation of documentary proof of hospital admission.
|
1 March 2013 |
| February 2013 |
|
|
Visual identification at night, supported by prior acquaintance and proximity, can suffice to uphold an armed robbery conviction.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – visual identification evidence – application of Waziri Amani guidelines (time, distance, lighting, prior acquaintance) – adequacy of lantern light and proximity to remove danger of mistaken identity.
* Criminal procedure – reading of charge – no requirement to read charge immediately before trial if previously read.
* Evidence – credibility and relatedness of prosecution witnesses – failure to raise at trial weakens appellate contention.
|
25 February 2013 |
|
Preliminary objection overruled: prior petition was not final, plaint signature defect (if any) not fatal, 90‑day notice issue already decided.
* Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Res judicata – prior petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction not a final decision; res judicata inapplicable.
* Civil procedure – Pleadings – Order VI r.14 – requirement of signatures – non-compliance not fatal absent miscarriage of justice.
* Government Proceedings – s.6(2) – 90-day notice – issue previously decided; doctrine of functus officio bars re-determination.
* Doctrine of functus officio – court cannot re-open matters it has finally decided.
|
18 February 2013 |
|
A supporting affidavit’s opinion-only paragraph may be struck out; status‑quo injunctive relief can accompany prerogative orders.
* Administrative law – judicial review – prerogative orders (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition) – availability of injunctive/conservatory relief (maintenance of status quo) in proceedings for prerogative orders.
* Civil procedure – affidavits – Order XIX r.3 CPC – statements of opinion must disclose basis; offending paragraphs may be struck out while retaining the rest of the affidavit.
* Newspapers – executive order banning publication – challenge by prerogative remedies.
|
5 February 2013 |