|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2013 |
|
|
Power of attorney testimony is hearsay; premature auction before loan due date without amicable settlement is void.
* Civil procedure – representation by relative/member of household – power of attorney – holder testifying for principal amounts to hearsay and trial court should direct principal to testify personally.
* Contract/construction – loan agreement ambiguities construed in favour of weaker party; repayment period determined by hand‑filled dates in agreement.
* Property/security enforcement – sale/auction of charged property prematurely and without pursuing agreed amicable settlement is null and void.
* Remedies – quashing of tribunal decision, restitution subject to payment of outstanding debt, costs awarded.
|
10 December 2013 |
|
Typographical errors in pleadings do not bar appeals; respondent failed to prove land ownership on balance of probabilities.
Land law – proof of title and trespass – sufficiency of written instrument and witness evidence; preliminary objections – requirement to raise pure points of law; typographical errors in pleadings do not render appeals incompetent; appellate interference with findings of fact where trial evidence deficient.
|
4 December 2013 |
| November 2013 |
|
|
Applicant granted extension to file revision; substantive jurisdiction and illegality issues reserved for the main application.
Labour law – extension of time – Rule 56 Labour Court Rules – good cause/sufficient reason; incompetent/struck-out filings; jurisdiction of CMA and allegations of illegality in awards; relief allowed to file revision within one month.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Court confirms unfair‑dismissal award but reduces arbitrator’s excessive 24‑month salary award to the 12 months claimed.
Employment law – unfair dismissal – computation of limitation period for referral to CMA; adequacy of CMA Form 1 pleading substantive and procedural unfairness; consistency of arbitrator’s findings; arbitrator’s power (or lack thereof) to award relief exceeding that claimed in referral.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Revision dismissed; CMA award confirmed but 24‑month salary award reduced to the 12‑month claim.
Labour law – limitation period for referral to CMA – calculation excluding first day; Labour law – unfair termination – sufficiency of pleadings on CMA Form 1; Administrative law – review of arbitration award – consistency of reasons; Relief – arbitrator cannot award more than claimed in referral form (suo moto increase unlawful).
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Dismissal for alleged gross negligence was unfair; arbitrator’s excessive 24-month award reduced to the 12 months claimed.
* Employment law – unfair dismissal – gross negligence – employer must prove connection between employee and alleged loss. * Disciplinary procedure – evidentiary sufficiency of shift handover reports. * Labour institutions – arbitrator’s powers – cannot award relief exceeding that claimed on referral. * Remedy – confirmation of unfair termination finding; correction of excessive monetary award.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Dismissal for alleged gross negligence was substantively unfair; CMA award reduced from 24 to 12 months' salary.
Labour law – unfair dismissal – gross negligence – insufficiency of documentary evidence (shift handover reports) to connect employee to loss – arbitrator exceeding claimed relief – award revised downward to claimed amount.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Revision dismissed: applicant failed to prove entitlement and did not follow employer's repatriation instructions.
Employment law — Revision of CMA arbitration award; entitlement to repatriation, luggage transport and subsistence allowances; burden of proof on claimant; employer's offer of repatriation and claimant's failure to follow up.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Revision of CMA award dismissed for lack of evidence and applicant’s failure to follow respondent’s repatriation process.
Labour law — Revision of CMA award under s.91 EIRA — Burden of proof on claimant to establish entitlement to post-termination allowances — Repatriation and luggage allowance — Employer’s discretion under Standing Orders to provide transport in kind or cash — Failure to pursue administrative repatriation process bars relief.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
High Court dismisses premature revision; applicants must first seek CMA restoration of the complaint under section 88(8).
* Labour law – Arbitration – Dismissal for non-attendance – Application to restore dismissed complaint at CMA – Section 88(8) Employment and Labour Relations Act (as amended) – requirement to exhaust CMA remedy before seeking High Court revision.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Applicant’s revision dismissed; proper remedy for non-attendance is to apply to the CMA to restore the complaint.
Labour law – Revision of CMA ruling; dismissal for non-attendance; requirement to apply to CMA to set aside or restore dismissed complaints; scope of Labour Court’s revision jurisdiction; procedural remedy exhaustion.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Employer failed to prove temporary status; oral termination without reason was substantively and procedurally unfair.
Employment law – Unfair termination – Oral termination without stated reason – Substantive and procedural unfairness under s.37(1),(2) ELRA; Employment particulars – Absence of written contract – Burden shifts to employer under s.15(6) ELRA; Temporary/CTA and visa/work-permit restrictions – employer’s duty to prove temporary status.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Employer failed to produce written particulars; employee deemed permanent and dismissal held unfair, CMA award confirmed.
* Employment law – unfair termination – section 37 Employment and Labour Relations Act – termination without valid reason is substantively unfair.
* Employment law – written particulars – section 15(1) and (6) ELRA – failure to produce written contract shifts burden to employer.
* Evidence – identity card and conduct may establish permanent employment where written contract absent.
* Procedural challenge – visa/work‑permit and CTA allegations insufficient to overturn CMA findings without documentary proof.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
CMA award restoring demoted teachers upheld; employer lacked authority to demote, revision dismissed.
* Labour law – unfair demotion and reinstatement – CMA award upheld; * Public Service law – Teachers Service Department powers over appointment/promotion; * Procedural fairness – retrospective application of circulars disallowed; * Review – alleged bias and specification of salary levels not established.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Applicant lacked demonstrated authority to demote teachers; CMA award restoring posts and ordering arrears was upheld and revision dismissed.
Labour law – review of CMA award – restoration and payment of arrears; Administrative law – authority to promote/demote teachers under Public Service Act s.6(4); Non-retrospectivity of administrative circulars; Requirement to adduce specific evidence of post/grade and salary when challenging awards; Procedural fairness in demotion and use of proper authority.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Dismissal was substantively unfair; applicant awarded 24 months' compensation and three years' severance pay.
Employment law; unfair dismissal — substantive and procedural fairness; burden of proof for misconduct; compensation for unfair termination (s.40(1)(c) E.L.R. Act); severance pay entitlement and implied continuation of employment after fixed‑term expiry (s.15, s.42 E.L.R. Act).
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Dismissal found substantively unfair; applicant awarded 24 months’ compensation and three years’ severance pay.
Employment law – unfair dismissal – substantive fairness – insufficiency of evidence to prove alleged theft; Employment and Labour Relations Act, s.40(1)(c) – compensation for unfair termination; s.15 – written particulars and changes to contract; s.42 – entitlement to severance on completion of continuous service.
|
8 November 2013 |
|
The applicant's revision is dismissed; the respondent's unfair termination award is confirmed and an arithmetical error corrected to Tshs. 8,320,000/=.
Labour law – unfair termination – statutory minimum compensation of twelve months' remuneration; arbitrator's discretion to award more where claimed; severance pay payable where no fair disciplinary process; correction of arithmetic error in CMA award.
|
7 November 2013 |
|
Court confirms CMA finding of substantive and procedural unfair dismissal, corrects arithmetic error and upholds compensation and severance award.
Employment law – unfair termination – failure to hold disciplinary hearing (Rule 13 GN.42/2007) – substantive and procedural unfairness – entitlement to severance and compensation under s.40(1)(c) ELRA – arbitrator’s discretion to award compensation above 12 months – correction of arithmetic error in award.
|
7 November 2013 |
|
Medical clinic notes did not establish good cause to excuse a nine-month delay in filing an unfair termination complaint.
Labour law — unfair termination — condonation of late referral to CMA — assessment of good cause — sufficiency of medical evidence (diabetes) to excuse delay — Rule 10(1), GN. 64/2007 (30-day referral rule).
|
7 November 2013 |
|
Applicant's diabetic clinic attendance did not establish good cause for nine-month delay in filing unfair termination claim.
Labour law – condonation for late referral of unfair termination – whether medical condition constitutes "good cause"; evidentiary weight of clinic notes; application of Rule 10(1) GN.64/2007 (30-day referral requirement).
|
7 November 2013 |
| September 2013 |
|
|
Acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution; plaintiff must prove lack of probable cause, malice, and damage.
* Tort — Malicious prosecution — Elements required: prosecution by defendant, termination in favour, lack of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and damage. * Criminal acquittal — Acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution in civil suit. * Evidence — Burden on plaintiff to prove all ingredients and compensable damages. * Appellate review — Trial court’s factual evaluation and credibility findings not lightly disturbed.
|
24 September 2013 |
|
An acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution; plaintiff must prove malice, lack of probable cause, and damages.
Malicious prosecution — elements required: prosecution by defendant, termination in favour of plaintiff, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and malice; acquittal alone insufficient to establish malicious prosecution; plaintiff must prove damages on balance of probabilities.
|
24 September 2013 |
|
Robbery conviction quashed for failure to prove theft; appellant convicted of assault and sentenced to four years.
Criminal law – Robbery – elements of robbery (stealing/asportation and violence) – material discrepancy in alleged stolen amount can defeat proof of asportation; Identification – complainant known to accused and immediate consistent identification reliable; Evidence – PF3 admissible though absence of doctor weakens corroboration; Confession – no conviction can be based on an unproduced caution statement; Age – burden to prove minority under s.110 Evidence Act.
|
9 September 2013 |
| August 2013 |
|
|
Mandatory procedural breaches (in camera hearing, witness verification, voir dire for child) vitiated the sexual offence trial; retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure — Sexual offences — Requirement to conduct trials in camera under section 186(3) — Non‑compliance vitiates proceedings.
* Criminal procedure — Witness evidence — Duty under section 210(3) to read evidence back and record comments — Non‑compliance renders proceedings null.
* Evidence — Child witnesses — Necessity of voir dire to determine competency and ability to take oath for children of tender years.
* Remedy — Cumulative procedural defects occasioning failure of justice — Conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
|
20 August 2013 |
| July 2013 |
|
|
Failure to determine a child's competence under s.127(2) required quashing the applicant's conviction and ordering a retrial.
* Criminal law – Rape of a minor – Evidence of a child prosecutrix – Requirement under s.127(2) to conduct and record voir dire to determine competence – Failure to do so undermines uncorroborated testimony. * Corroboration – PF3 and caution statement may be corroborative but do not substitute for mandatory procedural safeguards. * Remedy – Where material procedural omission affects the safety of conviction, retrial ordered before different magistrate.
|
17 July 2013 |
|
Conviction unsafe where police interviews were unrecorded and co-accused confessions lacked independent corroboration.
* Criminal law – conspiracy and stealing – proof beyond reasonable doubt – need for corroboration of co-accused confessions. * Criminal Procedure Act s.57(1) – requirement to record police interviews of suspects – non-compliance undermines admissibility/weight of evidence. * Recent possession and identification – absence of possession/eyewitness weakens prosecution case.
|
9 July 2013 |
|
The appellant's statutory-rape conviction was upheld on the victim's credible testimony and pregnancy; school-absence charge lacked evidence.
* Criminal law – Sexual offences – Statutory rape – Pregnancy as proof of penetration – Prosecutrix’s evidence alone may suffice where credible. * Evidence – Corroboration – Absence of independent eyewitnesses or delay in disclosure not necessarily fatal. * Criminal procedure – Conviction for causing a child not to attend school requires proof that schooling was in fact prevented.
|
5 July 2013 |
| June 2013 |
|
|
A guilty plea accepted without ensuring accused understood the trial language is invalid; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – plea of guilty – language barrier and right to understand proceedings – duty to secure an interpreter – defective plea vitiates conviction – retrial ordered.
|
27 June 2013 |
|
Applicant granted leave to appeal; time to appeal computed from receipt of judgment, not certification date.
* Land law – compensation for compulsory acquisition – adequacy of compensation as an arguable ground for appeal.
* Civil procedure – appeal time computation – time runs from receipt of certified judgment and proceedings, not date of certification.
* Procedure – leave to appeal out of time – discounting time taken to obtain copies.
|
24 June 2013 |
|
District Court improperly dismissed transfer application and discharged respondent without hearing; High Court quashed orders and ordered fresh transfer.
Magistrates' Courts Act s.47(1)(b) – transfer of proceedings from Primary Court to District Court; Magistrates' Courts Act s.43 – High Court revision jurisdiction; territorial jurisdiction of Primary Court and validity of eviction orders; right to be heard—procedural fairness and remedy of quashing irregular orders.
|
18 June 2013 |
|
Conflicting trial judgments in probate proceedings were quashed and the matter ordered reheard before another magistrate.
* Probate law – administration of estate – conflicting judgments – two inconsistent versions of same judgment in record.
* Civil procedure – authenticity of court record – effect of unexplained typed judgment differing from original handwritten judgment.
* Ex parte proceedings and default – subsequent alteration/duplication of judgments and impact on finality.
* Remedy – quashing of faulty judgments and order for rehearing before a different magistrate.
|
12 June 2013 |
|
|
10 June 2013 |
|
Applicant failed to prove sufficient cause for extension of time; condonation refused and application dismissed.
Labour law — extension of time/condonation — sufficiency of cause — dilatory conduct and lack of diligence — credibility of medical evidence — Rule 10(1) GN No.64/2007; Rule 56(1) Labour Court Rules.
|
10 June 2013 |
|
Applicant granted extension of time and leave to appeal to challenge this court’s decision, not the struck-out decision.
Extension of time – Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.11(1) – unopposed application; leave to appeal – scope of appeal limited to extant decision, not a struck-out judgment.
|
6 June 2013 |
| May 2013 |
|
|
An accused convicted in absence must receive a meaningful hearing on return; failure requires quashing conviction and retrial.
* Criminal procedure – ex parte trial and convictions in absence – application and interpretation of section 226(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. * Right to be heard upon apprehension – court must inquire into reasons for absence and probable defence. * Procedural safeguard – failure to conduct proper inquiry warrants quashing conviction and retrial de novo. * Authorities: Marwa Mahembe v R; Olonyo Lemuna & Another v R.
|
28 May 2013 |
|
Dismissal for loss of a client was held substantively fair; parties must verify whether statutory terminal benefits under s44 were paid.
Labour law – dismissal for operational requirements – loss of client as valid reason; consultation obligations under section 38; terminal benefits and employer’s obligations under section 44; review of CMA award.
|
22 May 2013 |
|
A tribunal cannot rely solely on property-tax receipts for land title and must give reasons when departing from assessors' unanimous opinion.
* Land law – proof of ownership – payment of property tax receipts insufficient alone to establish proprietary title without title deed or statutory documents. * Civil procedure – assessors’ opinions – Chairman must take assessors’ opinion into account and give reasons when departing from unanimous view (s.24 Land Disputes Courts Act). * Transfer of property from an estate – disposition must comply with statutory requirements and cannot be enforced if irregular. * Pleadings – court must confine findings to issues raised; failure may render judgment a nullity. * Remedy – quashing of tribunal judgment and remittal for rehearing on merits.
|
21 May 2013 |
|
Payment of property tax is not conclusive proof of land ownership; tribunal decision quashed for legal and procedural errors.
Land law — proof of ownership — payment of property tax not conclusive; requirement for written title instruments under Land Act; tribunal procedure — assessors' opinions and duty to give reasons when departing; invalid disposition by person without title; judgment quashed and matter remitted.
|
21 May 2013 |
|
Child’s credible testimony and supporting evidence proved rape despite a weakened medical report; appeal dismissed, compensation ordered.
Criminal law — Rape of a child; evidentiary weight of PF3 where maker not called (s.240(3) CPA); credibility and recording of child evidence (s.127(2) Evidence Act); relatives as witnesses — credibility not excluded by relationship; compensation under s.131(1) Penal Code.
|
21 May 2013 |
|
Conviction based on unsafe visual identification and flawed parade quashed; guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification and identification parade – Necessity to describe lighting and observing conditions; Waziri Amani safeguards – Cautioned statements – voluntariness and trial court duty to hold inquiry – Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
20 May 2013 |
|
Convictions quashed due to unsafe visual identification and improperly handled caution statements.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Reliance on visual identification at night – Waziri Aman principles; witnesses must describe lighting and observation conditions.
* Evidence – Caution/extra‑judicial statements – voluntariness; obligation to hold judicial inquiry when prosecution seeks to tender statements.
* Procedure – Identification parade – must be properly conducted and not compromised by pre‑parade contact.
* Standard of proof – Conviction unsafe where identification and investigative procedures are defective.
|
20 May 2013 |
|
Court granted extension of time, found tenancy extended/re-engagement existed, quashed tribunal eviction order and awarded costs.
Land law / tenancy – Employment-related occupancy – Whether termination of employment automatically terminates tenancy; documentary renewal/re-engagement may extend tenancy; appealability of interlocutory orders; extension of time for filing appeals under the Limitation Act.
|
16 May 2013 |
|
Time awaiting collection of a certified judgment is excluded; applicant's appeal period ran from receipt, so extension granted.
Civil procedure — Extension of time to appeal — Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act and section 95 CPC — Time awaiting collection of certified judgment excluded — Section 38(1) Land Disputes Courts Act — Appeal period runs from date of receipt of judgment copy.
|
14 May 2013 |
|
Whether testimony by an attorney-in-fact amounted to hearsay; court quashed tribunal decision for relying on it.
* Evidence — Hearsay — Testimony given by a holder of a power of attorney — Admissibility and weight where principals do not testify.
* Civil procedure — Appellate review — Tribunal reliance on inadmissible evidence — Quashing of decisions based on hearsay.
* Secured transactions — Sale of mortgaged property — Requirement for proper proof when sale challenged.
|
8 May 2013 |
|
Court struck out defective counter-affidavit for invalid jurat and argumentative content, and granted extension to file submissions.
* Limitation — extension of time — section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act. * Attestation/jurat — requirement to state place and date — section 8 Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act (Cap 12). * Affidavits — extraneous/argumentative matters prohibited — Order XIX rule 3(1) CPC (Cap 33) — striking out defective affidavits. * Procedural — timetable for written submissions and delivery of judgment.
|
6 May 2013 |
|
Failure to hold a trial-within-trial and to obtain medical corroboration vitiated the appellant's rape conviction; assault substituted.
* Criminal law – Rape – insufficiency of evidence where medical report maker not called – duty under s.240(3) to inform accused of right to summon medical report maker.
* Evidence – Caution statement – voluntariness – necessity of trial-within-trial before admission when voluntariness is contested.
* Evidence – Identification – reliability issues at night not sufficient to sustain conviction when corroboration absent.
* Criminal procedure – Conviction substitution – lesser offence (assault) substituted where principal offence not proved.
|
6 May 2013 |
| March 2013 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: sale not proved and tribunal wrongly accepted an unauthentic sale document; lower decision quashed.
* Land law – validity of sale – whether clan land requires clan consent for sale – proof of valid sale. * Evidence – acceptance of forged or unauthentic sale document – consequences for judgment. * Civil procedure – locus standi and representative suits versus probate/letters of administration. * Tribunal procedure – repeated adjournments without recorded reasons undermining procedural propriety.
|
6 March 2013 |
|
Appellant's land claim dismissed: respondent's 34‑year undisturbed possession barred claim; appellant lacked administrator status and failed prosecution.
Land law – limitation/adverse possession – continuous undisturbed occupation exceeding statutory period bars claim; Locus – requirement to be estate administrator before suing on deceased's land; Tribunal procedure – validity of Ward Tribunal where decision made by four members; Civil procedure – failure to file ordered written submissions amounts to want of prosecution.
|
6 March 2013 |
| February 2013 |
|
|
Waiting for judgment copies does not excuse delay in filing a notice of appeal; extension denied, certificate unnecessary.
* Civil procedure – extension of time to file notice of appeal – whether awaiting copies of judgment justifies delay; * Appeal procedure – notice of intention to appeal – filing within 30 days; * Copies of judgment/ proceedings necessary for drafting grounds and computing time to file appeal, but not prerequisite for lodging notice; * Certificate to appeal rendered unnecessary where extension refused.
|
19 February 2013 |