|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2015 |
|
|
Applicant failed to prove entitlement; tribunal properly evaluated evidence and lawfully upheld the sale to the respondents.
Land law — ownership and succession — administrator's powers — evidentiary burden; admissibility of representation at trial; locus in quo inspection; immovable fixtures (graves) pass with land; appellate review limited where objections not raised at trial.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Appeal allowed: prosecution failed to prove corruption, key witnesses not called and essential elements unproven.
* Criminal law – Corruption offences under Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act – elements of abuse of position, embezzlement/misappropriation and conspiracy. * Evidence – prosecution duty to call material witnesses; adverse inference where key witnesses available but not called. * Proof – requirement to prove receipt/conversion of funds for embezzlement; conspiracy requires evidence of agreement.
|
18 December 2015 |
|
Applicant allowed to withdraw land suit due to duplicate proceedings; withdrawal granted with no orders as to costs.
Civil procedure — Withdrawal of suit — Duplicate proceedings pending between same parties — Withdrawal allowed despite respondent not served — No order as to costs.
|
17 December 2015 |
|
Unclear capacity and representation of the village council rendered the trial defective; proceedings quashed and retrial ordered.
Land law – capacity of village council to sue or be sued; representation of local authorities at trial; misjoinder/non-joinder of necessary parties; assessor substitution and procedural irregularities; quashing tribunal proceedings and ordering retrial.
|
17 December 2015 |
|
Application for extension of appeal time and stay of execution refused for lack of good cause and to protect decree holders.
* Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – whether good cause and diligence shown to warrant extension of the sixty-day period. * Civil procedure – stay of execution – balancing prejudice to decree holders against applicant’s delay. * Land law – ownership disputes among descendants – potential futility of further litigation. * Costs – unsuccessful application dismissed with costs.
|
15 December 2015 |
|
Identification by familiar witnesses was reliable but armed robbery was not proved; conviction reduced to theft and six-year sentences.
Criminal law — Identification evidence — visual identification by familiar witnesses under good lighting can be reliable; Confessions — caution statements must admit essential ingredients of the charged offence; Preliminary hearing — non-mentioning of witnesses may render their evidence irregular; Exhibits — documents/physical exhibits need not be referred to at preliminary hearing to be admissible; Offence elements — armed robbery requires proof of being armed or use/threat of violence; Conviction may be reduced to lesser offence when essential ingredients not proved.
|
15 December 2015 |
| November 2015 |
|
|
The trial court’s failure to record assessors’ opinions and signatures rendered the proceedings null, requiring a de novo retrial.
* Criminal procedure – Primary Court procedure – duty to allow re-examination of witnesses; * Magistrates’ Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgment of Court) Rules – requirement to take and record assessors' opinions and signatures – omission renders proceedings null and void; * Appeals – appeal from a nullity is nullity; * Procedural requirement – notification to DPP under section 34(1)(b) – presence of State Attorney may cure defect.
|
5 November 2015 |
| October 2015 |
|
|
Misjoined respondent expunged; special damages unproven; general damages raised to Tshs.25,000,000 with interest and costs.
* Tort — Road traffic negligence — Compensation for personal injury; assessment of special and general damages.
* Civil procedure — Parties — Misjoinder/wrongly joined party on appeal; expunging a non-party from appellate record.
* Evidence — Special (specific) damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved (Zuberi Augustino principle).
* Appeals — Interference with discretionary award of general damages where trial court's reasoning is inadequate; appellate reassessment permissible.
* Remedies — Interest on judgment debt; costs.
|
19 October 2015 |
|
Deputy Registrars lack jurisdiction to compute decretal quantum; execution disputes must be remitted to the CMA for recomputation.
Labour procedure – execution of decretal awards – jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar to calculate quantum; enforcement vs determination of quantum; remit to CMA for recomputation; tax deduction evidence in execution proceedings.
|
9 October 2015 |
|
Investigation is a process; employer proved misconduct and termination was substantively and procedurally fair, CMA award reversed.
Employment law – investigation as a process; disciplinary procedure – Rule 13 GN.42 of 2007; burden on employer to prove substantive and procedural fairness; review of CMA award for misdirection on evidence.
|
9 October 2015 |
|
Whether middle-management employees (TSG 8–11) are entitled to overtime or only a Board-approved responsibility allowance.
Labour law – classification of staff (TSG 1–7 vs TSG 8–11) – effect of collective agreement expiry and scope; Board resolution/circular – responsibility allowance vs overtime; review of CMA award for misdirection and double payment risk.
|
9 October 2015 |
|
High Court allowed applicant’s application to call for and revise the CMA decision dated 8 November 2013.
Labour law – Revision – Power of the High Court to call for records and revise decisions of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration – Application allowed.
|
9 October 2015 |
| September 2015 |
|
|
Court affirmed rape conviction: child unsworn evidence admissible, PF3 properly admitted, prosecution proved penetration and identity.
Criminal law – child witnesses – voir dire and competency under s.127(2) Evidence Act; hearsay vs circumstantial evidence; admissibility of PF3 and s.240(3) CPA; variance of charge and s.234(3) CPA; proof of rape — penetration and identification; appellate review of concurrent findings.
|
30 September 2015 |
|
Conviction quashed and retrial ordered due to defective plea procedure and improper handling/disposal of exhibits.
Criminal procedure — plea of guilty — requirements under s.194 and s.228 CPA — plea must admit facts constituting offence; Exhibits tendered prior to halted proceedings must be withdrawn and re‑tendered; Disposal/return of exhibits regulated by s.353 CPA; Procedural irregularities vitiate conviction — retrial ordered.
|
29 September 2015 |
|
Appellant may redeem mortgaged land upon repayment; second agreement valid; foreclosure abolished.
Contract evidence — documentary terms prevail over inconsistent oral testimony; Novation — letter of 23/02/2011 constituted substituted contract; Coercion/undue influence — burden to prove; Land law — foreclosure abolished (Land Act ss.124–125), mortgagee’s remedies and right to possession subject to statutory procedure; Equity of redemption — mortgagor’s right to redeem; Invalid tribunal order — unlawful registration set aside.
|
23 September 2015 |
|
Written loan agreement and novation prevail; mortgagor entitled to redeem land on repayment of Tshs.3,000,000/=.
* Land law – mortgage – foreclosure abolished (s.124 Land Act) but mortgagee may enter possession or sell under statutory procedure (s.125). * Contract law – novation/substituted contract (doctrine of novation; s.62 Law of Contract). * Evidence – documentary evidence prevails over inconsistent oral testimony (ss.60–61 Evidence Act). * Contract vitiation – burden to prove coercion/undue influence (s.19 Law of Contract).
|
23 September 2015 |
|
Applicant’s serious illness and inability to obtain judgment constituted sufficient reasons to extend time to lodge an appeal.
Extension of time – sufficiency of reasons – illness, advanced age and inability to obtain judgment/ legal advice as grounds for delay – discretion of the court – delay not inordinate or negligent.
|
21 September 2015 |
|
|
21 September 2015 |
|
Ward Tribunal competent for boundary dispute of unknown value; appeal dismissed for estoppel and destructive conduct.
Land disputes – Ward Tribunal jurisdiction – boundary (uchochoro) disputes of unknown value; Pecuniary jurisdiction not determined by prior sale price; Estoppel – occupier in possession and rival's destructive acts (cutting tree) justify estoppel; Assessors – chairman not bound by assessors' opinion and must give reasons (s.24 Land Disputes Courts Act).
|
9 September 2015 |
|
Ward Tribunal had jurisdiction over an unvalued boundary dispute; appeal dismissed for lack of merit and appellant's destructive conduct.
Land law – Jurisdiction of Ward Tribunal – Pecuniary jurisdiction and valuation of boundary disputes (uchochoro) – Sale price not determinative where value unknown; Doctrine of estoppel – Possession and destructive acts (cutting trees, building) – Role of assessors and section 24 of the Land Disputes Courts Act; Appeal dismissed with costs.
|
9 September 2015 |
|
|
9 September 2015 |
|
Land recovery claim dismissed as time‑barred due to respondent's 12‑year adverse possession.
Land law – Limitation of actions – Recovery of land barred after 12 years; Adverse possession – continuous cultivation and occupation for 12+ years defeats later recovery; Locus standi – claims based on deceased owner's interest require timely action; Application of Limitation Act via s.52(2) Courts (Land Dispute Settlement) Act.
|
8 September 2015 |
|
Appellant’s land claim barred by twelve-year limitation and adverse possession; appeal dismissed with costs.
* Land law – recovery of land – limitation period – twelve years applies under Limitation Rules and Section 52(2) Courts (Land Dispute Settlement) Act. * Adverse possession – continuous cultivation and occupation for the limitation period defeats later recovery claims. * Locus standi – heir without letters of administration cannot override limitation/adverse possession where claimant delayed. * Evidentiary weight of sale agreement and timing of acquisition relevant to limitation and possession issues.
|
8 September 2015 |
|
Divorce orders set aside for failure to comply with Marriage Act conciliation and irretrievable breakdown requirements.
* Family law – Law of Marriage Act, Cap. 29 R.E. 2002 – section 101 – mandatory reference to Marriage Conciliation Board before instituting matrimonial proceedings.
* Family law – Law of Marriage Act – section 107 – necessity of evidence that marriage has irretrievably broken down before granting divorce.
* Civil procedure – procedural irregularities and statutory non‑compliance render judgments nullities.
* Matrimonial property and custody – courts must properly assess parties’ contributions and evidence; misdirection supports setting aside decisions.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Appeal allowed: divorce decree and related orders set aside for failure to comply with statutory conciliation and lack of evidence.
Marriage Act — s.101 conciliation requirement — non‑compliance renders proceedings irregular; s.107 irretrievable breakdown — necessity of evidence; matrimonial property — consideration of spouse’s contribution; custody and maintenance awards — evidential basis; nullity of judgment for procedural illegality.
|
3 September 2015 |
| August 2015 |
|
|
Accomplice-corroborated possession supported stealing conviction; burglary not proved, burglary sentence set aside and stealing sentence reduced.
Criminal law – recent possession of stolen property and presumption of knowing receipt – corroboration of accomplice evidence – identification evidence and need for parade – insufficiency of proof for burglary (housebreaking and night element) – appellate sentencing powers and reduction of sentence.
|
24 August 2015 |
|
|
21 August 2015 |
|
An appellate court may point out jurisdictional error and direct refiling; incidental remarks on a will's validity do not suffice to allow appeal.
* Probate law – jurisdiction of Primary Courts – Primary Courts lack jurisdiction over contentious probate matters involving validity of wills requiring higher court determination. * Appellate procedure – duty of appellate court to identify errors in lower court proceedings and to direct parties on proper forum; incidental remarks on merits do not necessarily amount to improper determination. * Administration of estates – trial court should scrutinize validity of a will before granting letters of administration.
|
20 August 2015 |
|
Plaintiff's withdrawal allowed; suit withdrawn with no order as to costs after failure to record settlement per Order 23 Rule 3.
Civil procedure – withdrawal of suit – plaintiff allowed to withdraw where defendant did not oppose; Costs – failure to award costs where parties failed to record settlement; Order 23 Rule 3 CPC – requirement to record settlement terms and consequences of non-compliance.
|
19 August 2015 |
|
Determination of matrimonial asset division lies with the court granting divorce; land tribunal lacked jurisdiction and its proceedings were nullified.
Family law – Divorce – Division of matrimonial assets – Property status and division under S.114(1) Law of Marriage Act – Jurisdiction of courts with matrimonial jurisdiction (S.76) – Invalidity of Land Tribunal determination where court with matrimonial jurisdiction must decide – Revision of appellate magistrate’s order that abdicated duty.
|
19 August 2015 |
|
Appellate tribunal's uncertified photocopy-based decision invalid; prolonged abandonment led to appellant's ownership by adverse possession.
Land law – recovery of land – limitation and adverse possession (12-year period) – Appellate procedure – essential contents of a judgment (points for determination, evaluation of evidence, reasons) – admissibility/certification of documentary evidence – when High Court may reassess evidence despite procedural irregularities.
|
14 August 2015 |
|
Conviction based on an equivocal guilty plea without exhibited forged notes was unsafe and was quashed.
* Criminal procedure – Plea of guilty – requirement for clear, detailed summary of facts and exhibition of relevant exhibits (s.228) – plea equivocal if unsupported by facts.* Evidence – burden on prosecution to prove forgery – seized currency must be produced/exhibited to court.* Disposal of exhibits – unlawful when exhibits not placed before the court.* Appeal – s.360(1) limitations where accused pleads guilty, but court may examine errors apparent on record.
|
13 August 2015 |
|
An appellate judgment lacking reasons is invalid; appellant entitled to land by adverse possession after 12 years.
* Civil procedure – essential contents of a valid judgment – must state points for determination, evaluate evidence and give reasons (Order XXXIX r.31). * Evidence – original documents preferred; uncertified photocopy not a substitute for missing original. * Land law – adverse possession and limitation: recovery of land is time-barred after 12 years (Limitation Act, Item 22 Part I). * Appellate discretion – court may determine appeal on merits despite procedural irregularities to avoid miscarriage of justice.
|
13 August 2015 |
|
Court permitted piercing the corporate veil to trace a company officer's personal assets to satisfy a decree.
* Company law — Separate legal personality — Lifting/piercing the corporate veil where a director/manager conceals assets to frustrate execution.
* Civil procedure — Execution — Tracing and inspecting properties of persons linked to judgment debtor to satisfy decree.
* Evidence/procedure — Technical defects in affidavit or annexures will not defeat substantive justice where facts justify relief.
|
13 August 2015 |
|
Appeal dismissed: execution imprisonment upheld where appellant refused service and failed to set aside ex parte judgment.
Civil procedure – execution proceedings – enforcement of decree by committal to civil imprisonment for non-payment; service of process – sufficiency where defendant refuses to accept summons; ex parte judgment – requirement to apply to set aside before resisting execution; inapplicability of case law on notice of judgment delivery to execution orders.
|
13 August 2015 |
|
Appeal dismissed: ex parte judgment and execution were valid where appellant refused service and failed to apply to set it aside.
* Civil procedure – Execution of decree – imprisonment for non‑payment – validity of execution where ex parte judgment stood and no application to set it aside. * Service of process – alleged defects in process server’s affidavit – party’s refusal to accept service and implications for validity of service. * Ex parte proceedings – adjournments and requirement (or not) for fresh service before execution orders. * Abuse of process – litigant’s attempts to frustrate enforcement of decree.
|
13 August 2015 |
|
An incompetent bill of costs must be struck out, not dismissed, where the court is not properly moved.
* Civil procedure – taxation of costs – incompetent bill of costs – lack of vouchers/receipts under Rules 4 and 55, Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules, 1991 (G.N. 515 of 1991) – incompetent matters should be struck out, not dismissed (Willow Investment v Mbornbo Ntumba).
|
12 August 2015 |
|
An incompetent bill of costs must be struck out, not dismissed, permitting correction and potential refiling.
* Taxation of costs — Bill of costs — Competency — Requirement for vouchers/receipts under Rules 4 and 55 of Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules, 1991. * Procedural law — Incompetent proceedings — Proper remedy is striking out (not dismissal) where matter not heard on merits — Willow Investment v Mbombwe Ntumba [1997] TLR 93 followed. * Taxing Master — jurisdiction and proper form of order when bill is non‑compliant.
|
12 August 2015 |
|
The Plaint here sufficiently stated the value and cause of action, so the preliminary jurisdictional objection was overruled.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Requirement to state value of subject matter in the Plaint (Order VII r.1(i) CPC) — Preliminary objection under Order VIII r.2 — Sufficiency of averments in the Plaint to establish pecuniary jurisdiction.
|
12 August 2015 |
|
The court overruled the defendants' jurisdictional objection, finding the Plaint adequately stated the monetary value and cause of action.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection under Order VIII Rule 2; Pleadings – requirement to state value of subject matter in Plaint (Order VII Rule 1(i)); Pecuniary jurisdiction – when Plaint discloses cause of action and monetary value; Distinguishing precedent on jurisdictional pleadings.
|
12 August 2015 |
|
Proceedings tainted by procedural irregularities were quashed and remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.
Land law — Procedural irregularities — Proceedings vitiated as nullity — Quashing and remitting record for rehearing — Requirement for different Chairperson and assessors — Compliance with G.N. 174/2003 and Land Disputes Courts Act (Cap.216).
|
12 August 2015 |
|
A land recovery claim filed after the 12-year limitation period is time‑barred; adverse possession extinguishes the applicant’s claim.
Land law – recovery of land – limitation period for recovery of land (Item 22 Part I, Law of Limitation Act) – adverse possession/prescription – accrual of right of action where defendant was in possession before deceased’s death; proof of administration/letters of administration; procedural irregularities in ward tribunal not shown to vitiate proceedings.
|
11 August 2015 |
|
Appeal dismissed: land recovery claim time‑barred where respondent's possession predated the deceased and limitation ran from possession.
Land law — Limitation and adverse possession — Suit for recovery of land barred where respondent's uninterrupted possession exceeded 12 years; Sections 9(1) and 35 Limitation Act inapplicable where possession predated deceased's death — Proof of administration required to sue for deceased's land.
|
11 August 2015 |
|
The applicant's plaint failed to meet Order VII requirements, was rejected, and the suit was struck out.
* Civil Procedure Code (Cap. 33 R.E. 2002) – Order VII – Requirements of a plaint – necessity to disclose cause of action and subject matter; * Annexures – documentary evidence must be attached to the plaint where relied upon; * Jurisdiction – plaint must disclose facts showing court's jurisdiction; * Order VII Rules 11 & 12 – rejection of defective plaint and striking out of suit.
|
10 August 2015 |
|
Ward tribunal lacked jurisdiction to overturn a sale by a lawful estate administrator; appeal dismissed, each party to bear own costs.
Land law — jurisdiction of ward tribunals — pecuniary limits under Section 15 of the Land Disputes Courts Act; Probate law — challenge to appointment or acts of estate administrator must be raised in competent probate forum (Magistrates Courts Act schedules); Finality of judgments — effect of prior probate and High Court decisions and res judicata; Non-joinder and proper parties in property sale disputes.
|
10 August 2015 |
|
Ward Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to challenge a sale validated by a lawful administrator; appeal dismissed, parties bear own costs.
* Land law – Jurisdiction – Ward Tribunal lacks jurisdiction where dispute value exceeds pecuniary limit (Tshs.3,000,000). * Probate law – Sale by court‑appointed administrator – validity upheld by prior High Court decision. * Civil procedure – Res judicata – prior competent probate decisions bar subsequent challenges in inferior tribunals. * Procedure – Challenge to appointment of administrator lies under Magistrates' Courts Act (fifth schedule) and appropriate probate appellate remedies.
|
10 August 2015 |
|
|
10 August 2015 |
|
Procedural irregularities and material contradictions in a child rape trial undermined the prosecution case and led to a retrial.
* Criminal law – Evidence of child witness – voir dire under s.127 Evidence Act; admissibility and competence of child’s sworn testimony.
* Criminal procedure – Right to a fair hearing – exclusion of accused during testimony; effect on admissibility and weight of evidence.
* Evidence – PF3 medical form – formal defects and evidential weight versus vitiation of prosecution case.
* Sexual offences – Corroboration of child complainant – when corroboration is required and sufficiency of other supporting evidence.
* Proof of age – proof by schooling and household testimony where no birth certificate produced.
* Forensic evidence – blood-stained garments without DNA analysis and implications for proof.
* Circumstantial evidence – contradictions going to root; requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
7 August 2015 |
| July 2015 |
|
|
A tribunal should not strike out proceedings on locus standi where the factual existence of the representative office is disputed.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – must raise point of law based on ascertained facts and be capable of disposing of the suit. * Locus standi – party instituting suit must show entitlement; where existence of representative office is disputed, tribunal must ascertain and explain choice between competing constitutions. * Remedy – review or refile where new evidence or unresolved factual disputes exist; striking out on unresolved locus standi premature.
|
30 July 2015 |
|
Misjoinder or non-joinder of parties is not fatal; tribunal must decide rights of parties before it on available evidence.
Land law – trespass – joinder of parties; Civil Procedure Code Cap 33, Order 1 Rule 3 (when persons may be joined) and Rule 9 (effect of misjoinder/non-joinder); tribunal’s duty to determine rights of parties before it rather than dismiss for misjoinder.
|
16 July 2015 |