|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2016 |
|
|
Reported
The appellant cannot raise an untried factual limitation defence on appeal; the tribunal erred by relying on unadmitted documents, case remitted for additional evidence.
* Land law – limitation – accrual of cause of action as factual issue – a party may not raise for the first time on appeal a factual limitation defence not pleaded or tried. * Evidence – documents – tribunal improperly relied on documents not tendered or admitted in open court; reliance on unadmitted exhibits is substantial procedural error. * Civil procedure – revisional jurisdiction – High Court may nullify proceedings and order additional evidence and re‑hearing where material documents were not properly admitted.
|
2 December 2016 |
|
Conviction for statutory rape upheld; sentence reduced under s.131(2) Penal Code because appellant was under 18 and a repeat offender.
Criminal law – Rape (statutory rape) – proof of victim’s age and penetration – victim and medical evidence as best evidence; Credibility – afterthought allegations of fabrication; Criminal sentencing – application of section 131(2) Penal Code to boys aged eighteen years or less and effect on sentencing for repeat offenders; appellate reduction of an excessive sentence.
|
1 December 2016 |
| November 2016 |
|
|
Reported
Appeal not time‑barred; appellants liable for unpaid purchase price despite theft; certain interest awards quashed.
Limitation of actions – Appeal from District Court exercising original jurisdiction – 45 days under Law of Limitation Act; Sale of Goods – buyer who accepts goods before full payment becomes baileee for unpaid price and bears risk of loss; Frustration of contract – theft in buyer’s possession does not automatically discharge unpaid price; Interest – pre‑suit interest for loss of business requires specific pleading and proof; post‑judgment interest awarded at court rate.
|
30 November 2016 |
|
Appeal timely under Law of Limitation Act; buyer liable for unpaid price despite theft in buyer’s custody; interest adjusted to court rate.
Civil procedure – limitation of appeals from District Court in original jurisdiction – Law of Limitation Act (45 days) applicable; Contract – sale of goods – risk and title on delivery; buyer as bailee with duty of care; frustration of contract cannot be invoked where not pleaded; interest – pre-suit interest for loss requires proof; post-judgment interest at court rate.
|
30 November 2016 |
|
Reported
Appellant lacked locus standi and the Ward Tribunal lacked jurisdiction; its order to take 10% of damages was unlawful.
Land law – locus standi to sue on behalf of deceased – only estate administrator may institute suit; Pecuniary jurisdiction – Ward Tribunal limited to disputes valuing up to Tshs 3,000,000; Judicial practice – courts/tribunals cannot charge or take a percentage of assessed damages.
|
29 November 2016 |
|
Delayed payment of compensation attracts statutory 6% interest; later directive rates not applicable to earlier valuations.
Land acquisition — valuation date governs applicable rates — non-retroactivity of later Government directive; delay in payment of compensation attracts statutory interest under section 15 Land Acquisition Act (6% per annum); post-valuation development does not increase compensation entitlement.
|
24 November 2016 |
|
Reported
A qualified advocate’s use of a business name does not invalidate court documents if the advocate drew them.
Advocates Act — requirement to indicate drawer of documents — business/trade name by qualified advocate — omission of advocate’s name not rendering document incompetent; practice under Business Names Registration Act; George Humba v Kasuka applied.
|
17 November 2016 |
|
An advocate’s use of a business name does not invalidate documents if a qualified advocate prepared them.
Advocates Act (ss.39, 43, 44) – requirement to show name/address of drawer – business/trade name used by a registered advocate – defect curable; prohibition targets unqualified persons preparing instruments for gain; omission of advocate’s name an irregularity, not fatal.
|
17 November 2016 |
|
Court upheld mother's custody and affirmed division of assets acquired in cohabitation or substantially improved during marriage.
* Family law – custody – presumption under s125(3) that child under seven is ordinarily with mother – presumption not rebutted. * Matrimonial property – assets acquired during cohabitation divisible under s160(2). * Pre-marriage assets substantially improved during marriage treated as matrimonial under s114(3). * Documentary title in one party’s name not conclusive of ownership – beneficial interest may exist. * Appellate deference to concurrent findings of fact. * Admission of additional evidence on appeal – s76(1)(d) CPC.
|
15 November 2016 |
|
The respondent was correctly awarded custody and cohabitation/improvements rendered disputed properties divisible as matrimonial assets.
Family law – Custody – presumption under section 125(3) that an infant under seven should be with the mother – presumption not rebutted. Matrimonial property – assets acquired during cohabitation and assets owned before marriage but substantially improved during marriage – sections 160(2) and 114(3) Law of Marriage Act – registered title in one party’s name does not preclude beneficial interest or division. Deference to concurrent factual findings of lower courts.
|
15 November 2016 |
|
Appeal allowed: demolition claim construed as land dispute, District Court lacked jurisdiction, suit dismissed on revision.
Jurisdiction — land dispute — demolition of building constitutes 'land' under Land Act definition; District Court lacks jurisdiction under Land Disputes Courts Act s.4(2). Civil procedure — interlocutory orders — Bozson test; appeals permissible where order implicates jurisdiction or results in illegality/vexatious proceedings. Pleadings — cause of action and reliefs read together to determine nature of dispute.
|
3 November 2016 |
|
A claim for demolition and loss of a building is a land dispute, ousting District Court jurisdiction.
* Jurisdiction – Land Disputes Courts Act – claims for demolition and loss of a building fall within the definition of "land" and oust District Court jurisdiction. * Pleadings – cause of action and prayers must be read together to determine whether a matter is a land dispute. * Civil procedure – appealability of interlocutory orders – Bozson test and exception where jurisdictional irregularity or injustice arises.
|
3 November 2016 |
|
A claim for demolition and loss of a building can constitute a land dispute, ousting District Court jurisdiction under the Land Disputes Courts Act.
Land law — Jurisdiction — Whether claim for demolition and loss of a building constitutes a land dispute under Land Act s.2 and thus ousts District Court jurisdiction under Land Disputes Courts Act s.4(2); interlocutory appeal exception where jurisdictional irregularity or injustice; revisional power to quash proceedings.
|
3 November 2016 |
| October 2016 |
|
|
Appellant lacked locus standi; Ward Tribunal lacked jurisdiction; awarding 10% of damages to the Tribunal was unlawful.
* Land law – locus standi – claims on behalf of deceased must be instituted by the estate administrator. * Ward Tribunal – pecuniary jurisdiction – limited to TSh 3,000,000; pleaded value governs jurisdiction. * Judicial/tribunal practice – unlawful for courts or tribunals to appropriate a percentage of damages awarded.
|
29 October 2016 |
|
Maternal custody presumption upheld; assets acquired during cohabitation or substantially improved in marriage are matrimonial and divisible.
Family law – custody presumption for children under seven (s.125 LMA); matrimonial property – assets acquired during cohabitation or substantially improved in marriage divisible (ss.114, 160(2) LMA); documentary title not decisive of beneficial interest.
|
15 October 2016 |
| September 2016 |
|
|
A defective memorandum of appeal lacking required content may be struck out; appellant may reinstitute subject to limitation.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Memorandum of appeal – Form and content – Order XXXIX rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Code – Requirement to state prayers – Remedy for nonconforming memorandum (rejection or return for amendment).
|
22 September 2016 |
|
A defective memorandum of appeal may be rejected and the appeal struck out; re‑filing permitted subject to limitation.
Appeal procedure – Memorandum of Appeal – compliance with Order XXXIX rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Code – inclusion of grounds and prayers – rejection or return for amendment – District Registrar’s jurisdiction to order submissions.
|
22 September 2016 |
| July 2016 |
|
|
Reported
Whether the applicant’s expired right of occupancy reverted to the President and whether the compensation award was lawful.
Land law – expiry of right of occupancy – reversion of superior title to the President (s.4(1) Land Act); Right of occupancy – renewal and compensation (s.32(3)–(4) Land Act) – limits on entitlement; Evidence – admissibility and weight of certified copy of title where original unavailable; Equity – reception clause and equitable maxims used to preserve a mistakenly conferred but unchallenged benefit; Procedure – absence of cross-appeal affecting final relief.
|
28 July 2016 |
|
Reported
Welfare presumption favors the mother for a child under seven; assets acquired/cohabited or improved during marriage are divisible.
* Family law – custody – presumption under s.125(3) that a child under seven should reside with the mother; rebuttal requires clear evidence.
* Matrimonial property – s.114 and s.160 – assets acquired during marriage or cohabitation and assets substantially improved during marriage are divisible.
* Registered title not decisive – beneficial interest may arise from spousal contributions; non-financial contributions recognised.
* Appellate review – deference to concurrent findings of fact by lower courts.
|
19 July 2016 |
| June 2016 |
|
|
A prior adverse decision by a judge and a litigant's lack of confidence alone do not justify recusal.
Judicial recusal — application for leave heard by judge who decided underlying case; sufficiency of endorsements under Advocates Act; recusal test from Laurian Lugarabamu — bad blood, close relationship, interest; mere prior adverse decision or apprehension of bias insufficient for disqualification.
|
8 June 2016 |
|
The appeal was dismissed: the applicant failed to prove procedural irregularities, incorrect measurements or inadequate compensation.
* Land acquisition — statutory notice and publication requirements — substance of notice through village meetings may satisfy safeguards; * Evidence — admissibility and timing of objections to valuation reports and village minutes; * Compensation — burden on claimant to prove market value and to produce counter-valuation or prove incorrect measurements; * Multiple claimants — each claimant must separately prove ownership, land size and entitlement to compensation.
|
7 June 2016 |
|
Appellants failed to prove procedural defects or under-valuation in land acquisition; appeal dismissed with costs.
* Land Acquisition Act – statutory notice and publication requirements – village meetings and newspaper gazetteing as compliance. * Evidence – admissibility of village minutes and valuation report; objection timing. * Compensation – assessment by market value under Land (Assessment of Value) Regulations; burden on owner to produce counter-valuation or sale evidence. * Burden of proof – each landowner must prove extent of land and entitlement to higher compensation. * Measurement disputes – general/unspecific complaints insufficient to overturn tribunal findings.
|
7 June 2016 |
| February 2016 |
|
|
Reported
Application to revoke probate struck out for being filed in the wrong court; limitation is a jurisdictional issue.
* Probate law – revocation of letters of administration – proper forum for challenges to grants made by a Primary Court.
* Limitation – Item 21 Part III, Law of Limitation Act (60 days) – time-bar as jurisdictional issue.
* Procedure – point of limitation may be raised at any time and court may raise it suo motu.
|
29 February 2016 |
|
Application to revoke letters of administration struck out for being filed in the wrong court; Primary Court must first assess limitation.
Probate — Revocation of letters of administration — Proper forum for revocation — Primary Court jurisdiction where letters were granted; Limitation — Item 21 Part III Law of Limitation Act (60 days) — time‑bar is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time; Procedural law — Wrong forum — striking out and costs.
|
29 February 2016 |
|
Revocation of Primary Court letters must be sought in that Primary Court and within the limitation period.
* Probate law – revocation of letters of administration – proper forum is the court that granted the letters (Primary Court). * Limitation – applications under Probate Act governed by Item 21 Part III of the Law of Limitation Act (60 days). * Jurisdiction – time limitation is a jurisdictional point and may be raised at any stage. * Procedure – filing in the wrong court leads to striking out; Primary Court to first determine time-bar.
|
29 February 2016 |