High Court of Tanzania

This is the second level in the Judiciary justice delivery hierarchy. It has both appellate and original powers on civil and criminal matters. It also hears appeals from the Courts of Resident Magistrate, the District Courts, and the District Land and Housing Tribunals in exercise of their original, appellate and/or revisional jurisdiction. The High Court is divided into Zones and specialized Divisions. 

Physical address
24 Kivukoni Road, P O Box: S.L.P. 9004
23 judgments
Skip past Court registries
Skip past years
Skip past months
Skip to results

Results. 23 judgments found.

23 judgments
November 1990
A man named as father cannot deny paternity unless he proves he never had sexual intercourse with the mother.
  • Family law — Paternity presumption — Where a woman names a man as the father he cannot deny paternity unless he proves he never had sexual intercourse with her — Burden of proof — Maintenance
27 November 1990
Identification evidence and recovery of stolen property supported convictions; procedural defects did not render convictions unsafe.
  • Criminal law
    • — housebreaking — sufficiency and reliability of identification evidence — corroborative value of recovery of stolen property and extra‑judicial admissions
    • — sentencing — concurrent terms — assessment of excessiveness on appeal
  • Criminal procedure — alleged defects in charge/particulars — whether procedural irregularities render conviction unsafe
  • Evidence — prejudice and miscarriage of justice
6 November 1990
October 1990
Trial in absentia valid where accused absconded; absence alone does not nullify conviction if evidence and procedure suffice.
  • Civil procedure — Procedural irregularities — imperfections in judgment do not necessarily invalidate conviction where record evidence is credible and sufficient
  • Criminal procedure — trial in absence — where accused absconds or fails to appear through own conduct, court may proceed
19 October 1990
Uncorroborated co‑accused confession cannot sustain conviction; passing a forged cheque supports conviction for uttering and fraud.
  • Criminal law
    • — confession of co-accused — conviction cannot be based solely on co-accused's confession
    • — Forgery, uttering and obtaining money by false pretences — distinction between actual forgery and participation in uttering/obtaining proceeds
18 October 1990
Appeal dismissed: identification and credibility findings upheld; alibi unproven and statutory minimum sentences affirmed.
  • Criminal law
    • — alibi — burden to produce supporting evidence
    • — Robbery with violence — Identification evidence — reliability where complainants knew accused before offence and observed them at the scene
    • — sentencing — sentence affirmed as minimum prescribed by applicable statute
  • Criminal procedure — Appellate review — deference to trial court credibility findings
18 October 1990
Conviction for burglary and theft upheld on teachers' testimony and recent possession evidence.
  • Criminal law
    • — Burglary and stealing — proof of breaking and entry — requirement of evidence establishing when and how entry occurred
    • — Recent possession — requirements: property found on accused, positive identification as recently stolen from complainant, temporal and factual link to charge — presumption that recent possession of stolen property requires explanation
16 October 1990
Appeal allowed: circumstantial and documentary evidence of forged cheques sufficed to overturn the second accused's acquittal and convict him.
  • Criminal law — fraud/conspiracy/uttering forged cheques
    • — appeal by DPP against acquittal
    • — circumstantial and documentary evidence (bank records, cheque book gaps, signature identification) sufficient to overturn an acquittal on proof of participation or knowledge
15 October 1990
A voluntary confession to police corroborated by recovery of stolen property can sustain conviction; appeal dismissed.
  • Criminal law — co‑accused confession
    • — conviction cannot rest solely on co‑accused’s confession
    • — requires corroboration
  • Criminal law — confession
  • Criminal law — Sentence — appellate interference only where manifestly excessive
  • Evidence — recovery of stolen property as corroboration of confessions and identification
6 October 1990
Possession of a stolen cow’s skin and corroborative evidence of slaughter supported conviction for cattle theft; appeal dismissed.
  • Criminal law — Theft — possession of recently stolen property
    • — appellate review of credibility and sufficiency of evidence
    • — identification of stolen cattle and recovery of carcass/skin as corroborative evidence
    • — slaughter and sale of carcass as circumstance supporting irresistible inference of guilt
3 October 1990
July 1990
Circumstantial and identification evidence must exclude innocence; mere suspicion cannot support a murder conviction.
  • Criminal law
    • — Murder — circumstantial evidence — Incriminatory facts must be incompatible with innocence
    • — identification evidence — Visual identification — Reliability and risk of mistaken identity in poor visibility
17 July 1990
May 1990
Whether evidence and admissions sustained the appellant’s conviction for breaking and stealing and whether five-year sentence was excessive.
  • Criminal law
    • — Office breaking and stealing — Possession of recently stolen property as evidence — Identification and admissions
    • — Sentencing — Appeal against sentence — Appeal against sentence not upheld — Value of stolen property TSh 30,000/=
11 May 1990
April 1990
Missing postal funds established beyond reasonable doubt; postmaster credible and appellant’s explanation rejected, appeal dismissed.
  • Criminal law — theft/misappropriation of public/postal funds — evidential sufficiency of account books and postmaster’s testimony — credibility of accused’s explanation — appeal dismissed
25 April 1990
A conviction cannot safely rest solely on a co‑accused’s confession without independent corroborative evidence.
  • Criminal law — confession of co-accused — conviction cannot be based solely on co-accused's confession — Evidence Act s 33
18 April 1990
March 1990
Possession and sale of recently stolen goods justified upholding the appellant’s burglary/theft conviction.
  • Criminal law — Burglary/theft — Forced entry — Recovery of stolen goods in accused’s possession shortly after theft and admission/sale to a purchaser supports conviction
28 March 1990
Conviction for employer theft quashed where circumstantial evidence failed to exclude other perpetrators.
  • Criminal law — Theft — Circumstantial evidence — Insufficiency of evidence to exclude other perpetrators — Conviction unsafe and quashed
23 March 1990
The applicant failed to prove negligence by the driver or carrier; claim dismissed with costs.
  • Tort
    • — Negligence — motor vehicle accident — standard of proof on balance of probabilities
    • — Vicarious liability — employer’s liability for employee’s negligent driving while in course of employment — No liability where employee negligence not established
15 March 1990
February 1990
Appeal allowed: possession evidence required respondents to open their defence; district court erred in dismissing under section 230.
  • Criminal law — Unlawful possession of government stores — sufficiency of evidence at close of prosecution
7 February 1990
Where a charge alleges violence or firearm possession, statutory law mandates refusal of bail and courts must apply that prohibition.
  • Appellate practice — Appellate review
    • — Magistrate erred in granting bail where statutory prohibition applied
    • — remand ordered
  • Civil procedure — Bail hearing — Prosecution not required to prove particulars of violence or firearm possession at bail stage
  • Criminal procedure — Bail
2 February 1990
January 1990
Eyewitness and handwriting identification evidence upheld conviction for stealing by a public servant; appeal dismissed.
  • Criminal law
    • — Evidence — eyewitness identification and handwriting evidence — admissibility
    • — Sentence — concurrent seven years confirmed
    • — stealing by public servant — sufficiency of evidence
31 January 1990
First accused’s theft conviction upheld on reliable identification and recent possession; second accused acquitted for lack of proof of knowledge.
  • Criminal law
    • — Burglary — Identification evidence — Identification in daylight, opportunity to observe transaction and parade identification — recent possession doctrine
    • — Receiving stolen property — Mens rea requirement that receiver knew or had reason to believe property was stolen at time of receipt — benefit of doubt where knowledge not established beyond reasonable doubt
31 January 1990
Conviction based on inadmissible hearsay and an unsigned extrajudicial statement was unsafe and quashed.
  • Evidence — hearsay and second‑hand testimony — inadmissible written/extrajudicial statements — absent witness’s statement not automatically admissible — conviction unsafe where no direct evidence of possession
31 January 1990
Appeal dismissed: conviction for contempt upheld where appellant disobeyed a lawful court order to refrain from occupying disputed land.
  • Criminal law
    • — Contempt of Court — Disobedience — Taking possession of land after being ordered not to occupy it
    • — Sentence — Six months imprisonment not excessive
  • Evidence — Credibility of- Witnesses — Administrator, village chairman and inspector testimony held sufficient to establish possession
  • Probate law — Property/probate — Dispute over estate distribution irrelevant to contempt where the appellant did not appeal prior order
31 January 1990
The applicant successfully challenged bail: s.148(5)(e) bars bail where the charge alleges violence or firearm possession.
  • Criminal procedure — Bail
1 January 1990