|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2015 |
|
|
Whether an injunction should preserve property and evidence pending assessment of statutory compensation for land acquisition.
* Land law – Acquisition and compensation – Requirement to pay full, fair and prompt compensation under the Land Act and National Land Policy; factors for assessing compensation. * Civil procedure – Interlocutory injunction – Application of the three-part test (serious triable issue, irreparable injury, balance of convenience). * Remedies – Preservation of property and evidence pending adjudication.
|
14 December 2015 |
|
Appeal allowed: refiling suit after dismissal and failed restoration is res judicata; time excluded for obtaining certified copies.
* Civil procedure – res judicata – effect of prior dismissal and failed application to set aside dismissal; plaintiff barred from filing fresh suit on same cause of action under Order IX rule 9(1) CPC. * Limitation – section 19(5) Law of Limitation Act – exclusion of time where appellant must obtain certified copies. * Appeals – interlocutory orders – exception where jurisdictional question or injustice warrants appellate intervention.
|
8 December 2015 |
|
Continuous cohabitation can create a presumed marriage entitling the parties to division of jointly acquired assets.
* Family law – Presumption of marriage – Continuous cohabitation under s.160 Law of Marriage Act – legal status of children of union
* Family law – Division of matrimonial assets – proof of joint acquisition and contribution; locus in quo evidence
* Civil procedure – Appeal – deference to concurrent findings of fact by lower courts; requirement of strong reasons to overturn
* Procedural law – New grounds not raised on earlier appeal cannot be entertained on subsequent appeal
|
3 December 2015 |
|
An heir lacked locus standi to challenge sale of deceased’s land; only the estate administrator may sue.
Locus standi – capacity to sue on behalf of a deceased’s estate – only legal representative/administrator (or authorized agent) may institute proceedings; absence of letters of administration renders an heir incompetent to maintain estate litigation; revisional powers to set aside tribunal decisions and quash null proceedings.
|
1 December 2015 |
| November 2015 |
|
|
Whether the defendant’s Written Statement of Defence was filed in time and whether defective service or lack of leave mandates ex‑parte hearing.
Civil procedure – Order VIII Rule 1(2) CPC – time for filing Written Statement of Defence; service of summons – validity and date from which time runs; proviso permitting extension within 21 days; consequences of non‑compliance – ex parte proceedings under Order VIII Rule 14(2)(b); effect of late participation on trial proceedings.
|
26 November 2015 |
| July 2015 |
|
|
Reported
Tribunal wrongly struck out purchaser-eligibility issue, but acceptance of rent created a periodic tenancy validly terminated; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – expiry of written lease and effect of acceptance of rent – periodic tenancy under section 82(2) Land Act; Civil procedure – Order XIV Rule 5(2) and striking out issues; Land Disputes Courts Act – tribunal's remit and use of Civil Procedure Code; Right of first refusal – limited/application where government policy restricts sales to public servants.
|
14 July 2015 |
| June 2015 |
|
|
Court refused remittal and ordered headteacher and school register produced to determine the accused’s age for sentencing.
* Criminal procedure – determination of accused’s age for sentencing – procedural propriety of raising age at mitigation and whether to remit under section 388 CrPC.
* Evidence – admissibility and use of school registers and headteacher’s oral testimony to determine age.
* Sentencing – effect of inconsistent age statements and records on punishment (corporal punishment eligibility).
|
30 June 2015 |
|
Lack of DPP consent and certificate under EOCCA rendered the magistrate’s withdrawal order void; matter ordered restarted de novo.
* Criminal procedure – jurisdiction – Effect of statutory prerequisites under EOCCA (DPP consent s.26(1); certificate s.12(3)) on a trial court’s power to withdraw charges under s.225 CPA – lack of DPP consent and certificate renders order void.
* Wildlife offences – unlawful possession of government trophies – procedural compliance required under EOCCA.
|
29 June 2015 |
|
Guilty plea set aside where incomplete facts and wrong charge citation prejudiced the accused; conviction quashed.
* Criminal law – guilty plea – when a plea may be impugned: imperfect, ambiguous or unfinished facts, mistake or misapprehension, no offence disclosed, or admitted facts insufficient to sustain conviction. * Criminal procedure – charge-sheet accuracy – wrong citation of statutory subsection can be fatal if facts do not inform accused of essential elements. * Retrial – not ordered where setting aside conviction would otherwise allow prosecution to fill gaps and prejudice the accused; interest of justice governs.
|
26 June 2015 |
|
A guilty plea was equivocal due to defective facts and wrong charge; conviction quashed and no retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – Plea of guilty – Whether plea is equivocal or unequivocal – admitted facts must disclose essential elements of the offence. * Criminal law – Particulars of charge – Incorrect citation of subsection may be fatal if facts fail to inform accused of nature and ingredients of offence. * Criminal procedure – Section 360(1) CPA – Exceptions where guilty plea may be impugned. * Retrial – When retrial is not ordered: where conviction vitiated by prosecution defects and retrial would prejudice accused.
|
26 June 2015 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed because possession, identification and seizure of the alleged stolen radio were not properly proved.
* Criminal law – possession of stolen property – requirement that property be found in accused’s possession and properly connected to accused. * Evidence – identification of property – complainant must describe property before it is shown in court. * Procedure – search and seizure – involvement of house owner and proper documentation/signature necessary for valid seizure. * Conviction – unsafe where possession, identification and seizure evidence are defective.
|
26 June 2015 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed due to inadmissible cautioned statement and inconsistent offence date.
Criminal law – Rape – proof beyond reasonable doubt; Evidence – cautioned statement – admissibility – compliance with sections 50 and 51 Criminal Procedure Act; Procedural irregularity – variance between charge sheet date and victim's testimony; Appeal – conviction quashed for insufficiency of admissible evidence.
|
8 June 2015 |
|
Conviction quashed due to wrongly admitted co‑accused confession and unreliable identification/recent possession evidence.
Criminal law – admission of co‑accused cautioned statement – duty to conduct inquiry when objection raised; Identification evidence – requirement to describe suspects to supporting witnesses; Doctrine of recent possession – necessity to prove actual possession; Benefit of doubt – where conflicting prosecution versions exist conviction cannot stand.
|
8 June 2015 |
|
An unlawful acquittal under s.225 CPA was set aside; the court ordered a fresh trial and the accused remanded for attendance.
* Criminal Procedure Act s.225(5) – expiry of 60 days without certificate – court may dismiss charge and discharge accused, not acquit.
* Illegality of acquittal entered contrary to statutory procedure – subject to revision and setting aside.
* Revision jurisdiction – power to correct unlawful orders and order retrial before another magistrate.
|
4 June 2015 |
|
Possession of cannabis upheld on constructive possession; six-year sentence affirmed and fine increased to three times market value.
* Criminal law – Drugs Act s.12(d) – unlawful possession of cannabis – constructive possession – proof where drugs found in accused's house. * Evidence – credibility of police and related witnesses – corroboration by independent witness. * Evidence – minor contradictions not fatal where gist of case consistent. * Procedure – delay in arrest – explained by accused fleeing; not necessarily fatal. * Search and seizure – search in accused's absence validated by Village Executive Officer and seizure certificate. * Sentence – statutory fine under s.12(d) must be greater of TShs 1,000,000 or three times market value.
|
3 June 2015 |
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction and six-year term upheld; fine set at three times assessed drug value (Tshs 191,250,000).
* Criminal law – possession of narcotic drugs – constructive possession – proof by presence of drugs in accused’s house and lack of reasonable explanation.
* Evidence – credibility of police and related witnesses – related witnesses may be credible if reliable and corroborated.
* Evidence – contradictions – minor discrepancies do not necessarily defeat prosecution when reasonably explained.
* Evidence – delay in arrest – unexplained delay may raise suspicion but delay explained by flight does not vitiate case.
* Procedure – search in absence of accused – validated by witnessing officers and seizure certificate.
* Sentencing – Drugs Act s.12(d) – fine must be the greater of Tshs 1,000,000 or three times market value.
|
3 June 2015 |
| May 2015 |
|
|
Appellate court restores primary court findings where district court ignored trial evidence and allowed unpleaded assertions on appeal.
Civil procedure – appeal – appellate court must consider trial evidence and may not admit new factual assertions in submissions; guarantor’s remedial sale of goods – evidence of authorization and debtor’s default; court record presumed accurate unless impeached.
|
5 May 2015 |
| February 2015 |
|
|
Reported
An acquittal alone does not prove malicious prosecution; the police had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute the applicant.
* Tort — Malicious prosecution — Elements required: prosecution, termination in favour, malice, absence of reasonable and probable cause, damage. * Malice — requires spite, ill-will or improper motive; mere acquittal insufficient. * Criminal investigations — police officers’ decision to prosecute assessed by whether a prudent and cautious person could honestly believe guilt on reasonable grounds. * Burden of proof — lies on plaintiff to show absence of reasonable and probable cause and existence of malice.
|
9 February 2015 |
|
An acquittal alone does not prove malicious prosecution where police had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute.
* Malicious prosecution – elements: prosecution, favourable termination, malice, lack of reasonable and probable cause, and damage.
* Reasonable and probable cause – honest belief based on reasonable grounds required to justify prosecution.
* Acquittal does not automatically establish malicious prosecution.
* Police/prosecutor discretion – evidence must be examined to determine if prosecution was founded on reasonable grounds.
|
9 February 2015 |