|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2000 |
|
|
Appeal against robbery conviction and sentence summarily dismissed due to overwhelming evidence.
Criminal procedure – Summary dismissal of appeal under section 364(1) where evidence is overwhelming; issues of identification, delay in arrest and absence of stolen property on arrest.
|
22 December 2000 |
|
Rape conviction quashed because failure to comply with section 240 identification procedures rendered the conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Rape – Identification evidence – Non‑compliance with section 240 Criminal Procedure Act – Identification parade/procedure – PF3 evidence – Procedural irregularities rendering conviction unsafe – Conviction quashed on appeal.
|
22 December 2000 |
|
Appeal allowed where improper admission of PF3 and failure to summon key witnesses made rape conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Rape – Admission of PF3 (medical report) – Compliance with s.240 Criminal Procedure Act – Right to summon medical witness and to cross‑examine – Failure to call independent eyewitness – Procedural irregularities rendering conviction unsafe.
|
22 December 2000 |
|
An honest claim of right to land defeats criminal trespass convictions; ownership disputes belong in civil court.
Criminal trespass (s299 Penal Code) – elements: actus reus and mens rea; Honest claim of right (s9 Penal Code) as complete defence; Disputes over land ownership are civil matters; Criminal courts should not convict where honest possession/claim of right negates criminal intent.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Failure to conduct a voir dire for a child witness renders her evidence unsworn and uncorroborated, invalidating the conviction.
* Evidence – Tender‑age witness – Voir dire/competency inquiry mandatory; absence renders testimony equivalent to unsworn and necessitates corroboration.
* Corroboration – Hearsay or evidence from non‑eye‑witness/accomplice insufficient to corroborate child’s testimony.
* Medical evidence – Delayed examination (three days) may be inadequate as independent corroboration.
* Criminal law – Burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; uncorroborated child evidence without competency inquiry cannot sustain conviction.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Child’s untested testimony required corroboration; absence rendered conviction unsafe and it was quashed.
Evidence — child witness — competency inquiry/voir dire mandatory; failure renders testimony equivalent to unworn evidence requiring corroboration. Corroboration — accomplice/hearsay evidence insufficient; delayed medical examination may be inadequate as corroboration. Criminal burden — prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
An honest claim of right or lawful possession defeats criminal trespass where mens rea is not proved; title disputes are civil.
Criminal trespass – s.299 Penal Code – elements: actus reus and mens rea – claim of right as full defence – long peaceful possession and lawful acquisition – civil dispute over title not punishable as criminal trespass; s.9 Penal Code protection.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
A chamber summons unsupported by a compliant affidavit is a nullity and vitiates any appeal dependent on it.
Civil procedure – chamber summons – affidavit requirements (Order XLIII r.2; Order XIX r.3(1)) – affidavits must be confined to deponent’s own knowledge; statements of belief, legal submissions and prayers inadmissible; hearsay/third‑party information admissible only if source disclosed and sworn – defective affidavit renders application a nullity and any dependent appeal incurably invalid.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Failure to give statutory notice of intention to appeal under s.361(1) CPA renders a criminal appeal incompetent and is dismissed.
Criminal procedure – Appeal competency – Statutory notice of intention to appeal under s.361(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 – Requirement to give notice within ten days – Failure to give notice renders appeal untenable and dismissible.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed for failure to give statutory notice of intention to appeal under section 361(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Criminal procedure — Statutory notice of intention to appeal — Section 361(c) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 — Notice must be given within ten days — Failure to give notice renders appeal incompetent and liable to dismissal.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
An appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to give the statutory ten‑day notice of intention to appeal under s.362(3) CPA.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal competency – Notice of intention to appeal – Mandatory requirement under section 362(3) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 – Failure to give ten‑day notice renders appeal untenable and subject to dismissal.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed where notice of intention to appeal was filed eleven days after the statutory ten-day period under section 361(a).
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of intention to appeal – Requirement under section 361(a) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 – Failure to give notice within prescribed time renders appeal incompetent.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
An application was struck out for being improperly instituted and supported by a defective, hearsay-laden affidavit.
Civil procedure – Chamber summons required for applications (Order XLII r.2); Affidavits – facts within deponent's own knowledge and grounds of belief (Order XIX r.3(1)); Hearsay – information from third parties inadmissible absent disclosed source and corroborating affidavit; Procedural and affidavit defects fatal to an application.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Split primary court judgment failing to comply with statutory rules was nullity; revisional proceedings founded on relitigated criminal complaint discontinued.
Primary Courts – Judgment formalities – Split decision between assessors and magistrate – Compliance with Magistrates' Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgment of Court) Rules, 1987 (G.N. 2 of 1987) – Majority and dissent to be recorded; assessors to sign; one deliberative vote per member; failure renders judgment a nullity; Abuse of process – relitigation of same subject in civil and criminal proceedings – criminal complaint cannot found civil revision.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Primary court judgments signed without the required two assessors are void; appeal based on such proceedings dismissed with costs.
Primary Courts – composition – mandatory requirement to sit with not less than two assessors (Magistrates' Courts Act s.7) – Decisions and judgments to be signed by magistrate and each assessor (Magistrates' Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgment of Court) Rules, r.3(2)) – Non-compliance renders proceedings and judgment void – Appeal founded on void proceedings dismissed with costs.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed with costs because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal by filing submissions or arguing it.
Civil procedure — Appeal — Failure to prosecute appeal — Appellant's duty to file submissions and argue appeal — Appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution; trial court judgment left undisturbed. Evidence — Conversion/theft and valuation — Claim for value and lost income upheld at trial but not re‑examined on appeal due to appellant's default.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed with costs because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal by filing submissions or arguing it.
Civil procedure – appeal – failure to prosecute appeal by not filing submissions – dismissal with costs; Evidence – alleged sale of machine part and proof of loss; Trial review – appellate court declined merits review where appellant failed to argue appeal.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove ownership or lack of title to seized pump; acquittal and restitution upheld.
* Criminal law – theft – ownership – burden of proof on prosecution to establish proprietor-ship of alleged stolen property.
* Evidence – identification – witness’ general assertion of "special size" insufficient for reliable identification of property.
* Property rights – good title – purchaser’s title questioned only if vendor’s unlawful acquisition is proven by cogent evidence.
* Caution statement – silence or non-disclosure in a caution statement does not compel conviction.
|
11 December 2000 |
|
Appeal allowed for the accused who was improperly prosecuted as a witness; other convictions upheld based on reliable identification evidence.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – daylight and prolonged opportunity to observe; sufficiency for conviction. * Criminal procedure – alibi and trial directions – appellate review of trial court’s reliance on eyewitnesses. * Abuse of process/malicious prosecution – treating a potential witness as accused where no evidence exists; quashing convictions and sentences. * Relief on appeal – quashing convictions and compensation orders; discharge where no lawful detention remains.
|
11 December 2000 |
|
Third appellant's conviction quashed for lack of evidence; first and second convictions upheld on reliable daytime identification.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – parade and witness identification – reliability where observation was in daytime and of substantial duration.
* Criminal procedure – Witness versus accused – improper conversion of a volunteer witness into an accused; conviction unsafe absent supporting evidence.
* Police conduct – allegation of malicious prosecution and its effect on safety of conviction.
* Appeal – appellate scrutiny of trial court's directions and sufficiency of evidence.
|
11 December 2000 |
|
Court entered judgment on admission for the principal sum, awarded costs, and reserved interest for later argument.
Civil procedure – judgment on admission of liability; award of principal sum and costs; issue of interest reserved for further argument.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
On admission of liability the court entered judgment for the plaintiff for the claimed principal sum and awarded costs.
Civil procedure – judgment on admission of liability – entry of judgment for claimed principal sum; award of costs to successful plaintiff.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
|
8 December 2000 |
|
Court awards plaintiff debt of shs.10,502,689.28 with contractual interest, instalments, default clause and taxed costs.
Debt recovery; contractual and post-judgment interest; instalment repayment order; default clause; costs to be taxed.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
Convictions for possession of stolen property quashed where prosecution failed to prove ownership or identify exhibits beyond suspicion.
* Criminal law – Possession of stolen property – burden of proof to establish ownership of seized exhibits – need for prior description or peculiar marks before production in court. * Evidence – identification of exhibits – probative value and reliability; conviction cannot rest on suspicion.
|
4 December 2000 |
|
Immediate recovery and identification of stolen property proved one appellant's guilt but warranted the other's acquittal.
Criminal law – theft/housebreaking – identification of stolen property – proof of ownership by serial number and distinctive marks – recovery of stolen property from accused’s house – caution statement as admission – temporal proximity between theft and recovery supporting presumption of guilt – sufficiency of evidence for co-accused conviction.
|
4 December 2000 |
|
Recent possession and inconsistent statements sustained the first appellant's conviction; the second appellant was acquitted for lack of knowledge.
Criminal law – Burglary and theft – Identification of stolen property; recent possession; evidential inferences from inconsistent statements and proximity in time between theft and seizure; acquittal for lack of knowledge/possession.
|
4 December 2000 |
|
Conviction for receiving stolen property quashed because prosecution failed to prove accused's guilty knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Receiving stolen property (s 311(1) Penal Code) – conviction requires proof of accused's knowledge or reasonable belief property was feloniously taken – mens rea must be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. * Criminal procedure – Appeals – unsafe conviction where magistrate relies on speculation or extraneous theories rather than evidence. * Evidence – Defence testimony that property was acquired from a deceased husband can raise reasonable doubt. * Property – Restitution of exhibits not disturbed where accused did not assert proprietary rights.
|
4 December 2000 |
|
Procedural irregularities by a primary court involving assessors do not nullify judgment absent a resulting failure of justice.
* Civil procedure – Primary courts – Role of assessors – consultation requirement under Rule 3(1) v. recording opinions.
* Civil procedure – Primary courts – Signature of judgment – Rule 3(2) requirement and effect of omission.
* Magistrates' Courts Act 1984 s.37(2) – Curable procedural irregularities – failure of justice test.
|
1 December 2000 |
|
Procedural flaws involving assessors do not invalidate a primary court judgment unless they cause failure of justice.
* Magistrates' Courts (Primary Courts) Rules (GN No.2 of 1988) r.3 – consultation with assessors; signatures on judgment.
* Magistrates' Courts Act 1984 s.37(2) – curable procedural errors and omissions that do not occasion failure of justice.
* Assessors – role as members of the court; majority/unanimous decisions; effect of concurrent opinions.
|
1 December 2000 |
| November 2000 |
|
|
Development by a trespasser does not confer title where the true owner did not acquiesce and prescription requirements are unmet.
* Land law – trespass and prescription – requisites for acquisitive prescription (continuous user, duration, user "as of right" – nec vi, nec clam, nec precario) – acquiescence by true owner required. * Limitation – bringing suit within statutory time prevents prescriptive acquisition. * Appeal – appellate court erred in awarding title based solely on cultivation/development by trespasser.
|
23 November 2000 |
|
Development or cultivation for five years does not give prescriptive title; twelve years of adverse, as-of-right possession is required.
* Land law – possession and prescription – prescriptive title requires continuous, adverse, and as-of-right user for prescribed period (twelve years). * Trespass – development or cultivation for five years does not confer prescriptive title. * Limitation – suit commenced within limitation period and local conciliation does not negate owner’s rights.
|
23 November 2000 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction for rape of a three-year-old quashed due to absence of direct identification, investigative testimony and unreliable medical exhibit.
Criminal appeal – rape of a child – absence of victim’s in-court testimony and dock identification – hearsay concerns – admissibility and sufficiency of PF3 medical report – failure to call investigating officers – conviction unsafe.
|
21 November 2000 |
|
Criminal trespass convictions quashed where appellants demonstrated an honest claim of right to the disputed land.
Criminal law – Criminal trespass (s.299 Penal Code) – elements: unlawful entry and requisite intent – Defence of honest claim of right (s.9 Penal Code) – civil ownership dispute vs criminal prosecution – acquittal where honest claim of right established.
|
19 November 2000 |
|
Appellant's attempted robbery conviction upheld on positive daylight identification and red-handed arrest despite no fingerprints.
Criminal law – Attempted robbery (s.287(2) Penal Code) – Identification in daylight – Red-handed arrest – Evidential value of fingerprints not indispensable – Failure to call defense witnesses weakens alibi.
|
14 November 2000 |
|
Registrar taxed the bill of costs, reducing several items and awarding Tshs.1,207,900 to the decree holder.
Civil procedure – taxation of bills of costs – Registrar’s discretionary assessment – disallowance of duplicative items – reduction of attendance and historical rate adjustments.
|
10 November 2000 |
|
Court dismissed objection and held applicant must seek leave to appeal rather than obtain a conflicting order in the same court.
* Civil procedure – representation – court will not make orders conflicting with an existing order; applicant should appeal earlier order if dissatisfied.
* Preliminary objection – court’s jurisdiction – court will not act as appellate court to re-decide an issue already determined.
|
9 November 2000 |
| October 2000 |
|
|
|
27 October 2000 |
|
A municipal inspector cannot represent or bind the applicant in the High Court without clear express authorization.
Local Government law – Representation of urban authorities – Section 100 Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act 1982 read with section 12(1)(a) – Officer must be duly authorized and able to bind the authority – Junior officers (e.g., municipal inspectors) lack automatic capacity to represent in High Court – Application to set aside dismissal for default dismissed.
|
27 October 2000 |
|
An appellant who succeeds on appeal is ordinarily entitled to costs; denial without reasons is erroneous.
* Civil procedure – Costs – Appeals originating in primary courts – Absence of specific rules on costs means section 30 CPC applies. * Costs – General rule that costs follow the event; discretionary but must be exercised judicially. * Costs – Denial of costs requires reasons; section 30(2) CPC requires written reasons where costs do not follow the event.
|
26 October 2000 |
From thejudgment and decree of the District Court of Mbozi District, in Civil Appeal Number 18 of2000 originating from Vwawa Urban Primary Court, Civil Case Number 48 of 1998) Civil Practice and Procedure - Costs - Court dismissed appeal but did not award costs - Whether award of costs to successful party after dismissal of a case is automatic - Factors considered in awarding costs. |
26 October 2000 |
|
Sole eyewitness credibility and lack of common intention led to acquittal for murder; manslaughter unproven.
Criminal law – Murder vs manslaughter – sufficiency and credibility of a sole eyewitness; common intention; medical evidence (splenic rupture) not conclusively proving fatal beating; requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
23 October 2000 |
|
PSRC is a necessary party and High Court leave is required before suing a specified corporation for wages provable in bankruptcy.
Public corporations – specified corporation – PSRC as official receiver under Public Corporations (Amendment) Act s.43(1) – powers under Bankruptcy Ordinance s.9; Bankruptcy – debts provable in bankruptcy – wages and employment benefits as preferred/provable debts (s.35) – requirement to obtain High Court leave before suing for such debts; Employment law – interaction between Employment Ordinance remedies (ss.132–134) and bankruptcy/receivership provisions – subordinate court jurisdiction and need for delegation under s.94.
|
17 October 2000 |
|
|
12 October 2000 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and credible witnesses established rape; lack of malice aforethought reduced murder charge to manslaughter (10 years).
Criminal law — Sexual offences and death of a child — Circumstantial evidence and witness credibility in proving rape — Distinction between murder (malice aforethought) and manslaughter where intent to kill is not established.
|
12 October 2000 |
|
Identification by prior acquaintance, good lighting and close proximity upheld; conviction affirmed and compensation order made immediately effective.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence – Prior acquaintance, lighting and proximity as factors supporting reliable identification.
* Criminal law – Defence – Alibi – Afterthought alibi properly rejected when weakly corroborated.
* Procedure – Compensation orders – Effect of order; compensation takes immediate effect and trial court’s delayed implementation varied.
|
11 October 2000 |
|
Whether a retracted caution statement was voluntary and could sustain convictions, and whether sentences were excessive.
* Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned statements – trial within a trial – voluntariness where torture alleged; sufficiency of medical and documentary evidence. * Evidence – confession and possession of stolen property as basis for conviction even where goods are of common manufacture. * Criminal law – malicious damage – requirement of proof of perpetrator. * Sentencing – appellate reduction for excessiveness.
|
11 October 2000 |
|
Appeal upheld in part: retracted confession held voluntary; malicious‑damage conviction quashed; custodial sentences reduced.
Criminal law – admissibility of retracted caution statement – trial‑within‑a‑trial and voluntariness; conviction on uncorroborated confession; proof of possession and identification of stolen property; quashing unsupported malicious‑damage conviction; reduction of manifestly excessive sentence.
|
11 October 2000 |
|
Acquittal where prosecution’s circumstantial evidence failed to eliminate reasonable doubt about accused’s guilt.
Criminal law – murder – circumstantial evidence; proof beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion insufficient for conviction; court’s discretion to depart from assessors' opinion.
|
9 October 2000 |
|
Appeal allowed: convictions quashed where identification was uncertain and permit authenticity unproven.
Criminal law – Cattle theft – Identification and possession – mens rea – authenticity of search permits – burden to disprove permit genuineness – revisional powers under s.30(1) Magistrates Courts Act.
|
2 October 2000 |