|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2002 |
|
|
|
31 December 2002 |
|
|
30 December 2002 |
|
Appeal allowed: unreliable identification and involuntary confessions rendered convictions unsafe; convictions quashed and appellants released.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – reliability of eyewitness ID; Police identification parades – compliance with Police General Orders; Confessions – voluntariness, retracted confessions and need for corroboration; Trial procedure – appropriateness of 'trial within a trial' in subordinate court; Circumstantial evidence and alibi.
|
12 December 2002 |
|
Court entered ex parte judgment for bank to recover overdraft with interest, costs and sale of secured properties.
Banking law – recovery of overdraft – proof of indebtedness by bank statement and branch manager’s evidence – valid mortgage and chattel security – ex parte judgment where defendant failed to file defence – enforcement by public auction sale.
|
12 December 2002 |
|
Plaintiff entitled to judgment for unpaid overdraft with interest and sale of mortgaged securities.
Banking law — Recovery of overdraft debt; proof of indebtedness by oral and documentary evidence; contractual interest at 21% per annum; enforcement by sale of mortgaged real property and chattel.
|
12 December 2002 |
|
Conviction for robbery quashed due to unreliable identification and other evidential deficiencies.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Identification of accused – Delay in reporting and seeking medical attention – Admission of documentary evidence without giving accused opportunity to comment – Failure to investigate – Reasonable doubt – Conviction unsafe.
|
11 December 2002 |
|
|
11 December 2002 |
|
|
11 December 2002 |
|
Instruction fee of Tshs.450,000 held reasonable; bill of costs taxed and allowed at Tshs.508,000.
Costs — taxation of bill of costs — instruction/advocate fee — reasonableness of fee — proof of representation and extent of work — taxation allowed as presented.
|
10 December 2002 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient or reasonable cause for delay; extension of time to apply for review dismissed with costs.
Law of Limitation Act s.14(1) – extension of time – “sufficient or reasonable cause” test – requirement to give day‑to‑day account of delay; specified public corporation status – timeliness of raising jurisdictional/validity objections; admissibility of supplementary affidavits lacking legal foundation.
|
3 December 2002 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause to extend time for filing review; application dismissed with costs.
Extension of time — section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act — 'sufficient or reasonable cause' requires account of day-to-day delay and bona fide explanation; review application — validity of judgments vis-à-vis declaration as specified public corporation; inadmissibility of supplementary affidavits that lack legal basis; doctrine of promptness in seeking relief.
|
3 December 2002 |
|
|
3 December 2002 |
|
An application to review a criminal decision is incompetent and dismissed if no statutory provision is cited to confer the Court’s review power.
* Jurisdiction – Criminal jurisdiction – Review of decisions – Court may not exercise review power absent statutory authority; applications must cite the enabling provision.
* Civil procedure – Competence of applications – Application under inapplicable legislation or without citing law is incompetent.
|
2 December 2002 |
|
|
2 December 2002 |
|
|
2 December 2002 |
|
|
2 December 2002 |
|
Application dismissed because the applicant’s earlier appeal was struck out and no substantial prospect of success was shown.
* Criminal law – convictions for malicious damage and stealing; prior appeal struck out – subsequent application lacking prospects of success.
* Procedural law – where an earlier appeal has been struck out, a later application must show a substantial/real chance of success to proceed.
|
2 December 2002 |
| November 2002 |
|
|
|
29 November 2002 |
|
|
29 November 2002 |
|
A divorce court cannot order bride-price refund from non‑parties without hearing them; such claims require separate civil action.
Matrimonial law – divorce – bride-price (pride-price) restitution – non-parties and natural justice; Pleadings – issues must be pleaded before determination in divorce proceedings; Division of matrimonial property – absence of evidence requires separate civil action; Appellate confirmation of district court judgment.
|
29 November 2002 |
|
|
28 November 2002 |
|
Court allowed extension of time to file appeal after accepting misplacement of memorandum and finding arguable grounds of appeal.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to file appeal – notice of appeal lodged within 10 days – failure to institute appeal within 45 days – misplacement of memorandum in public office as sufficient explanation – arguable grounds of appeal on construction of Prevention of Corruption Act – extension granted.
|
26 November 2002 |
|
|
26 November 2002 |
|
Applicant's unexplained delay in lodging notice and grounds of appeal justified dismissal of application for leave out of time.
Criminal procedure — application for leave to appeal out of time — section 361(a) Criminal Procedure Act, 1985 — failure to account for delay in lodging notice and filing grounds — dismissal for lack of satisfactory explanation.
|
26 November 2002 |
|
Plaintiffs’ suit dismissed for withdrawing an identical earlier suit without leave and failing to obtain required bankruptcy leave.
Civil procedure — Withdrawal of suit — Order XXIII r.1(1)–(3): withdrawal without court permission precludes instituting fresh suit; Bankruptcy Ordinance s.9(1) — mandatory leave to sue where required; Liquidator — acts as representative of company/appointing authority; Suit competency — compliance with winding-up and bankruptcy procedures.
|
22 November 2002 |
|
|
20 November 2002 |
|
Conviction for robbery quashed where identification evidence was unreliable and seized money/confession lacked proper proof.
Criminal law – robbery with violence – identification evidence – reliability where witnesses at scene cannot identify attackers – absence of identification parade; Evidentiary proof of seized property – whether money found on accused proved to be proceeds of crime; Confession made before village authority (VEO) – admissibility and risk of coercion; Need for corroboration of accomplice/circumstantial evidence.
|
20 November 2002 |
|
|
20 November 2002 |
|
Convictions quashed where vehicle owner was not proven to have participated and the burden of proof was improperly shifted.
Criminal law – sufficiency of evidence – owner’s liability where vehicle used in theft; conspiracy – requirement of common intention; burden of proof – prosecution’s duty and improper shifting to accused; appellate quashing of unsafe convictions.
|
20 November 2002 |
|
|
20 November 2002 |
|
Late notice of appeal invalidated the appeal against conviction; a 30-year sentence imposed under later amendments was illegal and reduced to 15 years.
Criminal procedure – late notice of appeal under s.361(a) – appeal against conviction invalid; Penal law – application of amended sentencing provisions – non-retroactivity – sentence imposed under post-amendment maximum illegal; Sentence review – reduction of illegal term from 30 to 15 years.
|
20 November 2002 |
|
Failure to give statutory notice of intention to appeal renders the appeal invalid and leads to it being struck out.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Mandatory notice of intention to appeal – Non‑compliance with s.214(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act invalidates appeal and warrants striking out.
|
20 November 2002 |
|
Application for extension dismissed where affidavit was unattested and representatives lacked authority.
Civil procedure — application for extension of time to appeal — supporting affidavit must be dated and attested — chamber summons must state legal basis — representative litigation requires proof of mandate — illness of one applicant does not excuse others' delay.
|
8 November 2002 |
|
Delay in obtaining a judgment copy does not automatically extend the statutory appeal period; extension must be sought under section 25 proviso.
* Civil procedure – appeals from subordinate courts – time limits under section 25(1)(a) of the Magistrates Courts Act – exclusivity over Limitation Act. * Extension of time – proviso to s.25(1)(a) empowers High Court to extend time before or after expiry; delay in obtaining judgment copy is not automatically excluded. * Remedy for late supply of judgment copy – apply for extension of time to High Court or Court of Appeal.
|
8 November 2002 |
|
Appeals under s.25(1)(a) are time‑bound; delay obtaining a judgment copy does not excuse failure to seek statutory extension.
Magistrates Courts Act s.25(1)(a) – statutory thirty-day appeal period – time mandatory; Limitation of Actions Act not applicable; delay in obtaining copy of judgment does not automatically exclude time – remedy is application for extension under proviso; court dilatoriness may justify extension if applicant acted diligently.
|
8 November 2002 |
|
Time spent obtaining copies of a judgment does not automatically extend the statutory period for filing an appeal; extension must be sought.
* Civil procedure — limitation of time for appeals — Magistrates Courts Act s.25(1)(a) — 30‑day rule to High Court; * Time spent procuring copies of judgments — not automatically excluded from limitation; * Remedy — application to High Court for extension of time (proviso to s.25) — must show good and justifiable reason; * Public policy — preventing abuse by claiming delay to obtain copies; * Review — dismissal where appeal was time‑barred and no extension sought.
|
8 November 2002 |
|
The appellants' guilty-plea procedure and sentencing were flawed; convictions quashed and appellants discharged.
Criminal procedure – Pleas of guilty – Necessity to explain charge, record plea in accused’s own words, prosecution to state detailed facts, accused to admit facts before conviction; Sentencing – Where statutory alternative of fine exists, fine should ordinarily be imposed unless justified reasons for imprisonment; Forfeiture/confiscation – property to be restituted where orders set aside.
|
1 November 2002 |
|
Guilty pleas were improperly recorded and imprisonment imposed despite available fines—convictions quashed and property restituted.
* Criminal procedure – Plea-taking – requirement that charges be explained in a language the accused understands; plea to be recorded in accused's own words and elaborated beyond "that is true".
* Criminal procedure – Requirement that prosecutor state detailed facts and accused admit facts before conviction on guilty plea is entered.
* Sentencing – Where statute provides alternative of a fine, courts should impose fine absent circumstances justifying imprisonment.
* Property – Forfeiture/confiscation set aside and restitution ordered.
|
1 November 2002 |
| October 2002 |
|
|
Application to reinstate time-barred appeal dismissed; once appeal dismissed court lacks jurisdiction to revise, review only.
* Civil procedure – time bars and extension of time – dismissal of appeal as time-barred extinguishes jurisdiction to revise; review may remain available.
* Procedure – reinstatement of appeal – application to reinstate time-barred appeal inappropriate once appeal dismissed.
* Remedies – proper remedy after dismissal for time-barred appeal is review or prior application for extension of time.
|
31 October 2002 |
|
Appeal dismissed: lack of evidence the cow was returned or died and concurrent lower-court findings upheld.
* Civil procedure – appeal – appellate interference with concurrent findings – when to disturb lower courts' concurrent judgments.
* Customary/marriage law – betrothal/bride-price – recovery of cattle paid as betrothal where marriage fails.
* Evidence – burden of proof and need for corroboration (witnesses, veterinary evidence) to prove death and transfer of livestock.
* Admission of fresh evidence on appeal – afterthought claims and requirements for new evidence to be admitted.
|
30 October 2002 |
|
|
30 October 2002 |
|
The appellant’s appeal dismissed; respondent entitled to recovery of a cow paid as betrothal due to lack of evidence of death or delivery.
Family law – betrothal (bride) price – recovery of cattle; evidence – proof of delivery and death of animal; failure to produce veterinary evidence; appellate procedure – inadmissibility of new evidence/after‑thought on appeal; concurrent findings – appeal dismissed as frivolous.
|
30 October 2002 |
|
|
30 October 2002 |
|
Appeal struck out for failure to file statutory notice and to seek extension under section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Criminal procedure — Notice of appeal — section 361(a) Criminal Procedure Act — mandatory time limits for lodging notice and filing appeal after certification — extension of time/leave required for late appeals — oral unrecorded intention to appeal insufficient — appeal struck out as time-barred.
|
29 October 2002 |
|
An ex‑parte decree will not be set aside absent proof of non‑service or sufficient cause for non‑appearance.
Ex‑parte judgment; Order 9 Rule 13(1) CPC – setting aside decree for non‑service or sufficient cause; proof of service by process servers; misdescription of defendant curable by amendment; balance of probabilities standard; failure to call process servers for cross‑examination weakens non‑service claim.
|
23 October 2002 |
|
Application to restore withdrawn appeal dismissed as time‑barred and fatally defective for not citing enabling provisions.
Civil procedure — Application to restore withdrawn appeal — Time bar under Item 21, First Schedule, Civil Procedure Code (60 days) — Applicant failed to account for ten‑month delay — Limitation a total defence — Failure to cite enabling provisions fatal — Application dismissed with costs.
|
22 October 2002 |
|
Affidavits must be based on personal knowledge; counsel’s affidavits are defective and may invalidate an application.
Affidavits – competency of deponent – affidavits must be based on personal knowledge; Advocate’s affidavit – generally defective and hearsay; Where sole evidence is counsel’s affidavit the application is invalid and liable to be struck out; Costs may be awarded.
|
22 October 2002 |
|
An affidavit sworn by counsel lacks necessary personal knowledge and renders an application invalid if it is the sole evidence.
Civil procedure — Affidavits — Requirement of personal knowledge — Affidavit sworn by counsel ordinarily hearsay and defective — Application supported solely by counsel's affidavit invalid — Application struck out with costs.
|
22 October 2002 |
|
Appellant's failure to file court‑ordered submissions amounted to failure to prosecute, warranting dismissal; no costs in employment case.
* Civil procedure — Failure to prosecute — Non‑compliance with court order to file written submissions — Dismissal of appeal. * Employment law — Costs in employment causes — Section 143 Employment Ordinance — costs generally not awarded absent justification. * Procedural compliance — court orders for submissions treated as part of hearing.
|
22 October 2002 |
|
Applicant’s attempt to vacate dismissal for late filings fails; counsel’s negligence imputed to applicant and application dismissed.
Civil procedure – application to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution – counsel’s late filing imputed to client – failure to cite enabling provisions may render application incompetent – application dismissed with costs.
|
22 October 2002 |