|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2013 |
|
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause, particularized irreparable loss or lack of delay to justify stay of execution.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Discretionary relief – Requirements: prima facie success on appeal; substantial/irreparable loss; balance of convenience; absence of unreasonable delay.
|
29 November 2013 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause for stay of execution pending appeal due to lack of irreparable loss and unreasonable delay.
Stay of execution – Order XXXIX r.5(3) CPC – prerequisites: substantial/irreparable loss, absence of unreasonable delay, security – balance of convenience – immovable property traceable and compensable by damages.
|
29 November 2013 |
|
Appellate court dismisses challenge: conviction upheld, PF3 expunged, 15-year statutory sentence confirmed.
Criminal law – Attempted armed robbery – Elements and proof under s.287B Penal Code; Evidence – raising new grounds on appeal; Admissibility – PF3 improperly tendered by lay witness and expunged; Criminal procedure – lawful substitution of charge under s.234(1); Sentencing – statutory minimum enforced.
|
4 November 2013 |
|
The appellant's rape conviction was quashed for insufficient evidence, unreliable identification and lack of medical linkage.
* Criminal law – Rape – sufficiency of evidence; identification safeguards (Waziri Amani); corroboration; medical evidence (PF3) and its linkage to accused; burden of proof.
|
1 November 2013 |
|
Applicant lacked locus standi to challenge a prohibited-immigrant order issued against her husband; application dismissed with costs.
Immigration law – Prohibited Immigrant Notice; Locus standi – requirement to show personal right or interest affected; Representation – suing on behalf of another requires power of attorney or genuine incapacity of principal; Procedural law – wrong party and dismissal with costs.
|
1 November 2013 |
|
Spouse lacked standing to challenge a Prohibited Immigrant notice issued to her husband without authority; application dismissed with costs.
Administrative law — locus standi — standing to challenge a Prohibited Immigrant notice issued to another person; necessity of power of attorney or demonstrable legal interest; wrong party — dismissal for lack of standing.
|
1 November 2013 |
| October 2013 |
|
|
Agent-custodian can sue warehousekeepers for non-delivery; shrinkage allowed at 1%, defendants liable for remaining shortage with interest and costs.
• Contract and bailment – warehouse storage of agricultural produce – liability for non-delivery under storage contracts and effect of warehouse receipts and release warrants. • Agency – locus to sue: agent/custodian may sue on behalf of primary cooperative societies despite absence of written agency agreement. • Evidence – role of admissions, warehouse receipts and purchaser's release warrants in proving non-delivery. • Shrinkage – allowable percentage and allocation of loss between warehousekeepers and owners. • Remedies – quantification of defective delivery, interest, nominal general damages and costs.
|
25 October 2013 |
|
Second appeal dismissed—concurrent findings that respondent owned the matrimonial house upheld; valuation to occur at execution.
Matrimonial property division; second appeal—deference to concurrent findings of fact; ownership and contribution to matrimonial house; valuation at execution; no interference absent misdirection or illegality.
|
24 October 2013 |
|
An equivocal guilty plea, not shown to be unequivocal, justifies quashing conviction and sentence.
* Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Equivocal plea – Court must ensure accused understands charge and has no defence before conviction – Failure to explain ingredients and to secure unequivocal plea entitles accused to quash of conviction and sentence.
|
21 October 2013 |
|
Acquittal where sole identifying witness was unreliable, conditions unfavourable and no corroboration of dying declaration.
Criminal law – Identification evidence — visual identification under unfavourable conditions; single-witness caution and need for corroboration; dying declaration and hearsay insufficient without independent corroboration; burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal where identification and corroboration deficiencies exist.
|
7 October 2013 |
| September 2013 |
|
|
Plaintiff failed to prove malice or lack of reasonable and probable cause; malicious-prosecution claim dismissed.
* Malicious prosecution – elements: prosecution, termination in favour, lack of reasonable and probable cause, malice – burden on plaintiff to prove malice and absence of probable cause. * Acquittal is not prima facie proof of lack of reasonable and probable cause. * Evidence of possession of bribe and matching note numbers may establish reasonable cause to prosecute.
|
30 September 2013 |
|
Appellants failed to prove the alleged debt; improperly tendered documents and lack of deceased’s acknowledgment defeated the claim.
Civil procedure – admissibility of annexures to plaint; Order VII Rule 14(1)&(2) – requirement to file/list documents with plaint; Evidence – burden of proof on balance of probabilities; Contract law – oral agreements in village context require witnesses/VEO under proviso to section 10 Law of Contract Act; Succession procedure – necessity to register claims against deceased’s estate.
|
20 September 2013 |
|
Non-joinder of transferee and seller rendered the tribunal’s judgment null, prompting quashing and retrial.
Land law – non-joinder of necessary parties (transferee and seller) – right to be heard – judgment and decree void for non-joinder – remittal for retrial.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Appellant's delayed appeal dismissed as time‑barred under the Limitation Act; preliminary objection sustained.
Appeal — Limitation — Time bar — appeal against District Court judgment filed after prescribed 45 days; Law of Limitation Act s.3(1) — proceedings filed out of time to be dismissed; Preliminary objection — determination on written submissions where appellants' counsel defaulted; Misjoinder not reached as time bar dispositive.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Whether the respondent instituted criminal proceedings without reasonable and probable cause, constituting malicious prosecution.
* Civil wrongs — Malicious prosecution — Elements: prosecution, termination in favour, malice, lack of reasonable and probable cause, and damage — application of Jeremiah Kamama test.
* Evidence — Trial judgment must analyse evidence; 'reasonable suspicion' does not substitute for reasonable and probable cause.
* Damages — Award for losses must be supported or reasonably assessed where claims are unitemized.
* Procedure — Appellate re-evaluation of evidence on the balance of probabilities where trial judgment is deficient.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Appellant successfully proved malicious prosecution where the respondent lacked reasonable and probable cause; damages and costs awarded.
* Malicious prosecution – elements required: prosecution by defendant, termination in favour of plaintiff, malice, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and damage.
* Evidence – reasonable suspicion is not equivalent to reasonable and probable cause; judgments must analyse evidence.
* Damages – assessment on balance of probabilities and judicial reduction of unitemized claims.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
A prosecution instituted without reasonable and probable cause was malicious, warranting damages and allowing the appeal.
Criminal law and civil tort – Malicious prosecution – elements required (prosecution, termination favouring plaintiff, malice, absence of reasonable/probable cause, damages) – distinction between reasonable suspicion and reasonable/probable cause – appellate review where trial judgment lacks analysis of evidence.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed: child evidence, improperly admitted PF3 and lack of identification undermined prosecution case.
Evidence Act s.127(2),(5) – voir dire required for child witnesses; Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) – right to call medical officer and admissibility of PF3; Identification evidence – need for identification parade where witness did not know accused prior; Sufficiency of evidence – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
The applicant's conviction quashed for failure to conduct voir dire, misadmission of PF3, and lack of identification parade.
* Evidence — Child witness — Section 127(2) Evidence Act — Mandatory voir dire to assess intelligence and duty to tell truth; unsworn child evidence without voir dire to be discounted.
* Criminal procedure — PF3 (medical report) — Section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act — PF3 must be tendered by or tested through the doctor who prepared it; accused entitled to have doctor summoned.
* Identification — Where witness did not know suspect before incident, an identification parade should be conducted to remove doubt.
* Conviction safety — Failure to observe statutory safeguards may render conviction unsafe and occasion quashing of conviction and sentence.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Respondent’s failure to attend conciliation and proved cruelty established irretrievable breakdown; respondent ordered to pay Tshs.3,300,000.
* Family law – Law of Marriage Act s.101 – requirement of certificate from Marriage Conciliation Board; summons and willful non‑attendance satisfies exception.
* Family law – Divorce – s.107 – irretrievable breakdown established by physical cruelty, separation and partial division of matrimonial assets.
* Matrimonial property – division – contributions (including domestic work) and misconduct relevant; valuation and equitable redistribution.
* Relief – compensation for bodily injury is not appropriate as an omnibus matrimonial award without itemization.
|
13 September 2013 |
|
Doctrine of recent possession improperly applied where search, recovery and identification of alleged stolen goods were not proved.
* Criminal law – doctrine of recent possession – requirement that recovered items be shown to be those stolen and linked to the charge. * Criminal procedure – evidence of search and recovery – necessity for witnesses and complainant’s identification. * Penal Code s.311 – offence of possession of stolen property – prosecution’s burden to prove possession and identity of goods. * Trial discretion – discharging accused vs convicting on lesser offence where primary charges not proved.
|
6 September 2013 |
| August 2013 |
|
|
Appeal allowed; court appointed the deceased's wife and sister jointly as co-administratrices to resolve competing probate proceedings.
Probate and administration – validity of appointment of administratrix – attendance at family meeting and proof of assent – competing probate proceedings – equitable appointment of co-administratrices to avoid delay and expense.
|
30 August 2013 |
|
Wrong statutory citation rendered the application incompetent; Ports Authority may sue and be sued without leave.
Civil procedure — Competency of application — Wrong citation of statutory provision renders application incompetent; Ports Authority — Capacity to sue and be sued under Ports Act s.4(1); Leave/joinder unnecessary; Late objection to amended affidavit.
|
30 August 2013 |
|
Appeal dismissed where it was filed about 52 days after decision, exceeding the 45-day statutory appeal period.
* Family law – Law of Marriage Act s.80(2) – time for appeal to High Court – 45 days from date of decision, not from service of copy. * Procedural law – Law of Marriage (Matrimonial Proceedings) Rules r.37(1) – appeals commenced by memorandum filed in subordinate court. * Appeal dismissed for being filed out of time.
|
30 August 2013 |
|
Failure to name the attesting officer in an affidavit jurat renders the applicant's proceeding incompetent and struck out.
* Affidavit — Jurat of attestation — mandatory requirement to state when, where and the name/authority before whom oath was administered; omission is incurably defective.
* Rubber stamp (e.g., State Attorney) — not part of the jurat — cannot substitute for attesting officer's name.
* Preliminary objection on formality — substantive point of law supporting striking out an incompetent application.
|
29 August 2013 |
|
Omission of the attesting officer's name in the jurat renders the affidavit incurably defective; application struck out with costs.
* Evidence/Affidavits – Jurat requirements – omission of name, place or date in jurat renders affidavit incurably defective; rubber stamp cannot substitute for attesting officer's name – preliminary objection on jurat defect not merely technical.
|
29 August 2013 |
|
Child complainant’s evidence improperly received without proper voir dire; conviction quashed for insufficient admissible evidence.
* Evidence — Child witness — section 127(2) Evidence Act — voir dire must establish understanding of oath and duty to speak truth before receiving a child’s evidence.
* Evidence — Improper reception of child’s evidence leads to expungement.
* Evidence — Hearsay — where complainant’s primary evidence is expunged, remaining hearsay evidence is insufficient to sustain conviction.
* Criminal law — burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt — conviction quashed where admissible evidence is insufficient.
|
28 August 2013 |
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction for rape upheld where victim, eyewitnesses and medical evidence proved non‑consensual penetration by the appellant.
* Criminal law – Rape – Elements: penetration (however slight) and lack of consent – Victim’s testimony corroborated by eyewitnesses and medical evidence.
* Evidence – Corroboration – Medical report and eyewitness presence at scene bolster victim’s account.
* Defence credibility – Accused’s inconsistent statements and lies may corroborate prosecution case.
|
26 August 2013 |
|
Whether penile penetration was proved beyond reasonable doubt; conviction substituted to grave sexual abuse and sentence reduced.
Criminal law – Rape – Requirement of penile penetration as essential element – Where evidence indicates insertion of a finger rather than penis conviction for rape is unsafe; substitution to grave sexual abuse (s.138C).; Medical evidence – bruising consistent with blunt object – corroboration and limits.; Caution statement and conduct – may show responsibility but does not substitute for proof of rape's essential ingredients.; Sentencing – life sentence replaced with appropriate term for substituted offence.
|
26 August 2013 |
|
No sufficient cause shown to extend time for appeal against appointment of administratrix; appeal dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – requirement of sufficient cause – medical evidence as cause – necessity of proof of hospitalisation or continuous incapacity.
* Probate and administration – appointment of administratrix – presence and failure to object at primary court relevant to later appeals.
* Appellate practice – new grounds not raised in lower court cannot be introduced at extension/appeal stage.
|
23 August 2013 |
|
Procedural defects (wrong statutory citation and defective jurat) rendered the extension application incompetent and it was struck out.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Proper citation of statutory provisions – Failure to specify subsection of enabling provision renders application incompetent. * Evidence/procedure – Affidavits – Jurat requirements under Cap 12 s.8 – Absence of attesting officer’s name or proper jurat renders affidavit incurably defective. * Incompetence – Procedural defects of citation and affidavit justify striking out application with costs.
|
23 August 2013 |
|
Daylight identification of a known assailant and medical evidence established rape; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Rape – Identification at close range in broad daylight of a known assailant; identification parade unnecessary for a known person; proof of penetration and absence of consent corroborated by medical evidence; mis‑pleading of statutory subsection curable if no prejudice.
|
16 August 2013 |
|
|
16 August 2013 |
|
Appellant’s conviction quashed where identification of stolen property was generalized and co-accused evidence uncorroborated.
Criminal law – identification of stolen property – complainant must describe goods and distinguishing marks before identification; Evidence – co-accused testimony akin to accomplice evidence requiring caution and independent corroboration; Burden of proof – remains on prosecution and must not be shifted to accused; Conviction cannot rest on mere suspicion.
|
16 August 2013 |
|
Conviction unsafe where identification was generalized and co‑accused evidence was uncorroborated.
* Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Identification of alleged stolen property – necessity for prior description and distinguishing marks before exhibition. * Evidence – Accomplice/co‑accused testimony – must be treated with caution and require corroboration. * Evidence – Burden of proof – remains with prosecution; possession alone and generalized identification amount to suspicion, not proof. * Procedure – Exhibits should be listed and properly tendered with opportunity for accused to comment.
|
16 August 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt and identification of the stolen generator.
Criminal law – burden of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; Identification of stolen property – recovery and positive identification required; Circumstantial evidence – must form an unbroken chain; Suspicion alone insufficient for conviction.
|
16 August 2013 |
|
Convictions quashed where identification, property identification and PF.3 evidence were unreliable and improperly admitted.
* Criminal law – visual identification at night – necessity to detail light source, intensity, room size, distance and duration of observation; Waziri Amani principles applied.
* Criminal law – identification of recovered property – requirement for conclusive description of notes or property to connect them to theft.
* Evidence – PF.3 medical reports – section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act right to summon report maker; failure to inform accused results in expunging report.
* Appeal – cumulative assessment of weak identification, inadequate property identification and unlawfully admitted exhibits warrants quashing convictions.
|
12 August 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed because the prosecution failed to prove the charged particulars of the stolen property beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – proof of charge – particulars of stolen property must correspond to evidence – discrepancy between charge sheet (Nokia 1661) and complainant’s testimony (Nokia 1680) vitiates prosecution case – conviction quashed.
|
5 August 2013 |
|
Appellate court quashed rape conviction for unsworn translation, inadequate identification, inadmissible expert opinion and uncorroborated suspicion.
Criminal law – Rape conviction – Identification evidence – single eyewitness; interpreter/translator must swear an oath; Evidence Act s.127(3) and (7) warnings and reasons; Expert evidence – competence must be shown before admission; Circumstantial evidence – forensic proof required to link blood stains to victim; Conviction cannot rest on suspicion.
|
2 August 2013 |
|
Leave and stay applications struck out for incorrect statutory citation, omnibus filing, and failure to attach required order.
* Civil procedure – competence of application – proper citation of enabling statute – failure to cite correct provision renders application incompetent.
* Civil procedure – omnibus applications – distinct reliefs (leave to appeal and stay of execution) must be filed separately with separate affidavits and fees.
* Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 49(3) – mandatory requirement to attach copy of High Court order to leave application – non‑compliance fatal.
* Pure point of law – court may raise competence sua sponte.
* Remedy – striking out incompetent application with costs.
|
2 August 2013 |
| July 2013 |
|
|
Child’s unsworn testimony and improper identification rendered rape conviction unsafe; conviction quashed.
Evidence Act s127 (voir dire) — child witness competency; witness through interpreter/translator must be sworn; PF.3 (medical) must be properly admitted to prove penetration; hearsay evidence inadmissible; identification parades unreliable where witness knew suspect; conviction unsafe where identity/penetration not proved.
|
31 July 2013 |
|
Rape conviction quashed where victim did not testify and prosecution relied on inadmissible hearsay without complying with s34B.
* Criminal law – Rape: victim’s testimony as best evidence; hearsay evidence by third parties inadmissible to prove rape. * Evidence Act, s.34B – statement of unavailable witness admissible only upon strict compliance with s.34B(2) requirements. * Conviction unsafe where essential witness (victim) did not testify and statutory route for admitting prior statement was not satisfied.
|
31 July 2013 |
|
An equivocal plea without facts read to the accused vitiates conviction; release ordered where sentence largely served.
Criminal procedure – Plea of guilty – requirement to put facts to accused – equivocal plea vitiates conviction – where plea equivocal court should record not guilty and hear evidence; Remedy – retrial vs release where sentence largely served; statutory references s.366(1)(a)(i) and s.170(2)(a)(ii) CPA.
|
26 July 2013 |
|
Leave application struck out for wrong statutory citation and failure to attach the required High Court order.
* Appellate procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Appeal – correct statutory citation (Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap 141) and correct subsection (s.5(2)(c)) required.
* Civil procedure – competence of application – mandatory attachment of High Court order under Rule 49(3), Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
* Failure to cite correct provision or to attach required documents renders leave application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
26 July 2013 |
|
Leave to appeal struck out for incorrect statutory citation and failure to attach the mandatory High Court order.
* Appellate procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Appeal – proper citation of statute and subsection (Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap 141 R.E.2002 s.5(2)(c)).
* Civil procedure – competence of application – court not properly moved where wrong statute cited.
* Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 49(3)) – mandatory requirement to attach copy of High Court order to leave application.
* Procedural compliance – failure to comply with mandatory filing requirements renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out with costs.
|
26 July 2013 |
|
Where a re-admission application was struck out, filing an extension application is misconceived; re-file properly or appeal instead.
Land procedure – application for extension of time to appeal; jurisdiction to entertain extension where prior appeal dismissed and re-admission application struck out; competency of proceedings; abuse of court process; correct remedy is re-filing competent re-admission application or appealing to Court of Appeal.
|
5 July 2013 |
|
Appeal dismissed: sale by a court-recognized administrator upheld; new issues and late documents cannot be raised on appeal.
Land law – sale of land by administrator – admissibility of probate/administration document (Form IV) – raising forgery objections at trial; Civil procedure – appeals – new issues not pleaded at trial cannot be introduced on appeal; Land Disputes Courts – role of assessors and requirement for reasons when departing from their opinions; Evidence – late documents not tendered at trial are not ordinarily considered on appeal.
|
5 July 2013 |
|
Leave to appeal filed out of time is incompetent; extension of time must be sought before filing leave; application struck out.
* Appellate procedure – Leave to appeal – Time limit under rule 45(a) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Application filed out of 14‑day period – Requirement to seek extension of time before filing leave – Incompetence and striking out – No costs where defect raised suo motu.
|
3 July 2013 |
| June 2013 |
|
|
Equivocal plea and failure to explain memorandum at preliminary hearing rendered conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and sentence set aside.
Criminal procedure – Guilty pleas – Requirements for an unequivocal plea; Preliminary hearing (s192 CPA) distinct from plea-taking (s228 CPA); Memorandum of undisputed facts must be read and explained to accused (s192(3)); Conviction based on equivocal plea and procedural irregularity unsafe.
|
27 June 2013 |
|
The appellants' convictions for unlawful possession of elephant tusks were quashed due to material contradictions in prosecution evidence.
* Criminal law – Wildlife offences – Unlawful possession of government trophies (elephant tusks) under Wildlife Conservation Act. * Evidence – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Material contradictions in prosecution witnesses’ accounts can dismantle prosecution case. * Credibility – Trial court’s duty to identify and resolve inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony; unresolved material contradictions to be resolved in favour of accused. * Appeal – Conviction and sentence unsafe where prosecution case undermined by contradictions.
|
26 June 2013 |