|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| February 2024 |
|
|
Accused convicted of grievous harm; sentenced to six years and ordered to pay TZS 3,000,000 compensation after plea and remand deductions.
Criminal law – Acts intended to cause grievous harm (s.222(a) Penal Code) – life imprisonment is maximum not mandatory; sentencing discretion; aggravating factors (lethal weapon, deep wounds, amputation, permanent incapacitation, trivial motive); mitigating factors (first offender, remorse, early plea, surrender, remand time); deduction of remand time; compensation under ss.25 & 31 Penal Code and s.348(1) CPA.
|
28 February 2024 |
|
A recorded settlement from Ward Tribunal mediation is binding and not subject to revision; DLHT revision proceedings were nullified.
Land law – Ward Tribunal mediation post-2021 amendments – mediation is distinct from judicial hearing; consent settlements recorded by ward tribunals are binding and not revisable; section 36 Cap 216 applies to judicial decisions, not mediated settlements; coram and formal procedural requirements for hearings are not determinative of mediation validity where regulations are absent.
|
26 February 2024 |
|
Early guilty plea, serious aggravating injuries and remand credit shaped a reduced custodial sentence plus TZS 4,000,000 compensation.
Criminal law – Acts Intended to Cause Grievous Harm (s.222(a) Penal Code) – use of lethal weapon, multiple wounds and amputation as aggravating factors
Sentencing – role of early guilty plea and confession – one-third reduction
Sentencing – deduction of remand custody from term
Compensation – award under Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Act
|
26 February 2024 |
|
Non-appearance by prosecution under s.222 leads to dismissal and discharge, not acquittal.
Criminal procedure – s.222 Criminal Procedure Act – Non-appearance of prosecution – Proper remedy is dismissal of charge and discharge of accused, not acquittal. Trial irregularity – lower court mischaracterisation of discharge as acquittal – appellate nullification and remittal. Court of Appeal authorities confirming dismissal-and-discharge principle where adjournment is improper
|
22 February 2024 |
|
Extension of time granted due to illegality on the face of the record despite inadequate accounting for delay.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Good cause assessed by length of delay, reasons, prejudice, promptness and accounting for each day. Extension of time – Illegality on the face of the record – Misapplication of statute (Probate Act used instead of Land Registration Act s.78(1)) can constitute sufficient cause. Sickness of a relative/caregiver – Does not automatically excuse delay; applicant must account for each day
|
22 February 2024 |
|
Court dismissed objections, expunged a prayer paragraph, held Rule 40 inapplicable post-judgment and allowed party-filed revision under section 79.
Civil procedure – Revision under section 79 CPC – whether an aggrieved party may institute revision or whether High Court must act suo motu. Family law – Law of Marriage Rules, Rule 40 – scope limited to questions arising before or on hearing; does not bar post-judgment revision
Evidence – Order XIX Rule 3 CPC – affidavits must state facts within deponent’s knowledge but isolated legal terms, read in context, may be permissible. Procedural remedies – expungement of inconsequential offensive paragraphs in an affidavit as appropriate remedy
|
22 February 2024 |
|
Failure to account for each day of delay defeats an application for extension of time to file a reference.
Civil procedure – extension of time – sufficient cause – applicant must account for each day of delay; related proceedings can be a reasonable ground but do not excuse unexplained days. Taxation/appeal procedure – struck out reference – time for filing extension
|
22 February 2024 |
|
Court admitted the accused's cautioned statement as voluntary despite torture claims, relying on inconsistent medical record and corroborative detail.
Criminal procedure – trial-within-trial – admissibility of cautioned/confessional statements – voluntariness and coercion allegations – probative value of medical records (PF.3) and corroborative contents of statement.
|
22 February 2024 |
|
Execution without specifying land size/description and without the original trial record renders the proceedings a nullity.
Land disputes — execution — requirement to specify size, location and demarcation of land in execution orders; executing tribunal must have and follow original trial record; proceedings and execution without requisite particulars or record are nullities; remedy is quashing and setting aside of affected orders and striking out appeals originating from such nullities.
|
22 February 2024 |
|
An appeal directly from a ward tribunal to the High Court is incompetent; such appeals must go to the DLHT.
Land law – Jurisdiction – Appeals from ward tribunals – Appeals lie to the District Land and Housing Tribunal, not directly to the High Court (Land Division) – Land Disputes Courts Act ss.38(1), 42. Civil procedure – Overriding-objective cannot displace mandatory procedural provisions that go to jurisdiction
Competence – Appeal struck out for improper appellate route
|
21 February 2024 |
|
Applicant's 1.5-acre wrongly attached in execution; court ordered its release or compensation.
Objection proceedings – Order XXI r.57–59 CPC – investigation of claims to property attached in execution – jurisdiction where Government/Attorney General involved – time limitation and locus – release of wrongly attached land or compensation.
|
19 February 2024 |
|
Court overruled objection and admitted cautioned statement, finding the confession voluntary and torture allegations unproven.
Criminal procedure – trial-within-trial – admissibility of confession; Evidence Act s27 – voluntariness of confession; CPA s169(1) – exclusion of illegally obtained evidence; credibility and corroboration in torture allegations.
|
19 February 2024 |
|
Revision cannot substitute for appeal where an appeal right exists; applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances.
Land law — Revisional jurisdiction — Distinction between revision and appeal — Revision not to be used as alternative to appeal where right of appeal exists — Exceptional circumstances required to invoke revision — Application struck out as incompetent.
|
16 February 2024 |
|
Court allowed lifting of the corporate veil to enable execution of a decree against company directors.
Company law – Lifting the corporate veil – enforcement of decree against company directors; corporate veil is not absolute; decree-holder entitled to pierce veil where directors seek to evade liability – Civil Procedure Code s.95 & Order XXI r.40; Companies Act s.481.
|
15 February 2024 |
|
An execution order returning decretal property is non-appealable; complaints about the property's condition require a separate suit.
Civil procedure – Execution orders – Execution order returning decretal property is generally non-appealable under section 74 of the Civil Procedure Code. Civil procedure – Appealability – Section 75 does not permit direct appeal to challenge depreciation or condition of executed property; remedy is a separate suit
Remedies – Where decree has been executed but dispute exists over condition/substitution of the decretal property, the aggrieved party should institute a fresh action or seek appropriate relief in a proper forum
|
15 February 2024 |
|
Court vacated a scheduling order and allowed defendants to amend their defence in the interests of justice, with conditions.
Civil procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Order VI r.17 CPC permits amendments at any stage – Scheduling order restricts departures – Order VIII r.23 allows amendment only if necessary in the interests of justice – Court may vacate scheduling order and impose conditions (timeframe and costs).
|
7 February 2024 |
|
Convictions quashed where identification, chain of custody, investigation and recent possession elements were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal procedure – amendment of charge under s.234 Cap 20 – plea and recall of witnesses; discretionary recall
Evidence – chain of custody and identification of exhibits – necessity of distinctive marks, documentation and chassis/serial numbers
Evidence – reliance on victim’s private inventory/stock‑taking and adequacy of police investigation
Evidence – caution statements/confessions and contradictions among statements and witnesses. Doctrine of recent possession – all elements must be cumulatively proved; ownership and recentness required. Delay in reporting alleged offence – unexplained delay may undermine prosecution case
|
6 February 2024 |
|
Bank validly relied on spouse-consent and vehicle registration; inconsistent pleadings defeated respondent's claim.
Property law – movable vs immovable – spouse consent under Mortgage Financing (Special Provision) Act intended to protect family interests in immovable/landed property, not movables (vehicles). Evidence and pleadings – parties bound by pleadings; testimony inconsistent with pleadings may fail to prove claimed interest on balance of probabilities. Mortgage law – mortgagee/mortgagee protection: bank acted reasonably relying on borrower’s representations and spouse-consent provided at loan formation; borrower cannot later introduce another spouse to defeat mortgage (section 123 Cap 6 principles). Registration law – Road Traffic Act s.11(3) registration showing sole ownership is strong evidence of ownership for vehicles
|
5 February 2024 |
|
Preliminary objections requiring factual proof were overruled and a temporary injunction was granted to stop tree cutting pending the land suit.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objections: must be pure points of law and not depend on disputed facts or evidence (Mukisa; Tanzania Telecommunications).; Civil procedure – Temporary injunction: Atilio test – serious question to be tried, irreparable injury, balance of convenience.; Evidence – allegations of res judicata, functus officio or cancellation of administratorship require supporting record, not mere assertion.; Land disputes – interim protection to prevent destruction/alienation of long‑standing trees pending final determination.
|
5 February 2024 |
|
Section 21(2) Law of Limitation permits excluding time spent prosecuting a prior good-faith revision, so the present revision was not time-barred.
Limitation law – section 21(2) Law of Limitation Act – automatic exclusion of time spent prosecuting prior proceedings in good faith; Employment law – section 91(1)(a) Employment and Labour Relations Act – six-week limitation for filing revisions; Court of Appeal precedent (Geita Gold Mining) applied; preliminary objection to time-barred filing overruled.
|
5 February 2024 |