|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2025 |
|
|
Appellant failed to prove on balance of probabilities that respondent harvested 90 bags of maize; appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – burden of proof and balance of probabilities; evidence – weight of testimony vs documentary proof; ownership/permission does not prove wrongful harvesting; alleged admission must appear on record.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
Delay caused by the trial tribunal and e‑filing problems can justify an extension of time to file an appeal.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Sufficient cause – Applicant must account for days of delay, show diligence and promptness (Lyamuya principles); delay attributable to trial tribunal’s failure to rectify judgment and e‑filing/network problems can constitute sufficient cause; uncontested affidavit and ex parte hearing considered.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
Proceedings vitiated where Ward Tribunal adjudicated instead of mediating, assessors' opinions unrecorded, and evidence improperly recorded.
* Land law – Ward Tribunal role – mediation not adjudication required under section 13 LDCA;
* Jurisdiction – District Tribunal cannot hear matter absent proper Ward mediation (s.13(4));
* Procedure – assessors' opinions must be recorded, read and incorporated; failure is fatal;
* Evidence – witness statements must be recorded in narrative form (Order XVIII, R.10 CPC);
* Remedy – proceedings and judgment nullified; matter may be instituted afresh from Ward Tribunal.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
An executing tribunal must implement an existing decree and cannot re‑determine previously adjudicated issues or vary the decree.
Execution of decrees – executing court confined to implementation of decree and cannot vary its terms; defects in pleadings (e.g., inadequate description of immovable property) must be raised at trial or on appeal; res judicata and jurisdictional issues previously determined cannot be re-opened by execution proceedings; functus officio doctrine.
|
12 November 2025 |
|
Summary judgment may be entered for unpaid NSSF contributions as government debt where respondent fails to seek leave to defend.
Summary suit (Order XXXV CPC) – recovery of unpaid NSSF contributions as government debt; employer’s liability for statutory contributions; effect of failure to apply for leave to appear and defend within 21 days; award of principal, late‑payment additional contributions, interest and costs.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
A divorce petition without a valid Marriage Conciliation Board certificate deprives the court of jurisdiction.
Law of Marriage Act s.101 – mandatory referral to Marriage Conciliation Board; Form No.3 validity – correct stamp and authority; jurisdictional defect – invalid certificate nullifies proceedings and warrants quashing of lower courts' judgments; Ward Tribunal and Marriage Conciliation Board are distinct bodies.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
The respondent's loan claim was statute‑barred; the applicant's appeal succeeded on limitation grounds.
* Limitation law – contractual claims – six‑year limitation period (Item 7, Law of Limitation Act) – accrual when installment became due; pre‑court negotiations do not stop running of time.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
A tribunal’s suo motu striking out over registered land without hearing parties violates the right to be heard.
Land law – jurisdiction of DLHT in disputes over registered land; requirement to join Registrar of Titles/land authorities; natural justice – audi alteram partem; illegality of suo motu decisions affecting parties’ rights; remittal for hearing on propriety.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Unsigned, incomplete and ambiguous trial judgments and orders rendered the conviction null; matter remitted for a proper judgment.
* Criminal procedure – Judgment formalities – section 331 CPA – requirement for signed, dated judgment stating points for determination, decision and reasons.
* Criminal procedure – Omission of accused from judgment and issuance of multiple judgments – fatal irregularity affecting right to appeal.
* Criminal procedure – Requirement to specify offence, applicable law and sentence in a judgment – omission is incurable.
* Execution of orders – Orders affecting property must be specific (amount and responsible party) to be enforceable.
* Remedy – Nullity and remittal for proper judgment where defects are fundamental.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Proceedings against a deceased respondent without proof of estate representation violate the right to be heard and are nullified.
* Constitutional & procedural law – Right to legal representation and to be heard (Art.13(6)(a)) – Proceedings against a deceased party without proof of estate administrator invalid.
* Civil procedure – Substitution of parties – Requirement to produce letter of appointment and to amend pleadings to include estate administrator.
* Land law – Procedural irregularity in land dispute; fatal irregularity necessitating nullification and remittal.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
The appellant’s conviction quashed for failure to prove the victim’s age and to call a material witness.
* Criminal law – sexual offences – unnatural offence (carnal knowledge) – required proof of penetration and victim’s age * Evidence – burden and standard in criminal trials – proof beyond reasonable doubt * Evidence – proof of age of child – need for concrete/corroborative evidence (e.g., birth certificate) * Evidence – duty to call material witnesses – adverse inference where prosecution omits witness without sufficient reason * Procedure – voir dire for child witness vs promise to tell the truth
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove sufficient cause to re-admit an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; application dismissed with costs.
Civil Procedure — Order XXXIX rule 19 CPC — re-admission of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; sufficiency of cause assessed case-by-case; credibility of medical evidence; unpleaded or belated allegations of misinformation by court staff not entertained.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Proceedings resumed after a dismissal for want of prosecution without lawful restoration vitiate later judgment; improperly recorded witness evidence also invalidates proceedings.
Land law – procedural irregularity – dismissal for want of prosecution – necessity of applying to set aside dismissal/restore proceedings under the Land Disputes Courts Regulations; Evidence – requirement to record witnesses’ evidence in narrative form (Order XVIII r.9–10 CPC via s.55(2) Land Disputes Courts Act); Revisionary powers – nullification and quashing of tribunal proceedings and judgment.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
Appeal allowed in part: procedural defects (improper evidence recording, unrecorded assessors' opinions, ambiguous judgment) nullified and remit to tribunal.
* Land law – village land ownership dispute – validity of sale and ownership declarations.
* Civil procedure – recording of evidence – requirement for narrative form; question-and-answer/ bullet records invalid.
* Tribunal procedure – assessors’ opinions must be recorded, read to parties and incorporated into the record; failure is fatal.
* Judgment – ambiguity and inconsistent ownership findings render a decree unenforceable and a nullity.
* Remedy – nullification of affected proceedings and remittal to tribunal for proper recording of evidence.
|
7 November 2025 |
|
District Land Tribunal proceedings are null without a Ward Tribunal conciliation certificate or proof of thirty‑day lapse.
Land law – Jurisdiction – Requirement of Ward Tribunal conciliation certificate or proof of 30‑day lapse under section 13(4) Land Disputes Courts Act – Failure to comply renders District Tribunal proceedings a nullity; parties free to re‑institute at Ward Tribunal.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
Illness unsupported by detailed medical evidence and unexplained delay do not justify extension of time to appeal.
Extension of time – requirement to account for each day of delay – illness as ground for extension – need for medical evidence showing incapacity – duty of diligence and alternative steps (instructing counsel/relatives).
|
5 November 2025 |
|
Applicant’s unsubstantiated illness and failure to account for delay did not justify extension of time.
Extension of time; sufficiency of cause — illness as ground for extension; duty to account for each day of delay; requirement to prove causal incapacity; discretion to grant extension.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
Admission of liability yields a binding decree; appellate courts cannot rely on new facts raised in submissions.
Civil procedure – appeal – submissions not evidence – appellate courts confined to trial record; judgment by admission – admitted liability yields decree as of right; Rule 54(1) omission does not extinguish debt.
|
4 November 2025 |
|
Admission of liability fixes judgment; new facts in submissions cannot overturn decree and omission under Rule 54(1) does not vitiate liability.
Civil procedure – admission of liability – judgment by admission; Appellate review – submissions cannot introduce new facts; Evidence – appellate court limited to trial record; Magistrates’ Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules r.54(1) – omission to inquire on satisfaction of decretal sum does not extinguish liability; Revisional powers – cannot enforce agreements not on record.
|
4 November 2025 |
| October 2025 |
|
|
Appellate court upheld weapons conviction but quashed trophy conviction due to inadequate identification of alleged wildebeest trophies.
* Criminal appeal – evaluation of evidence – appellate court’s duty to rehear and re-evaluate record. * Wildlife offences – identification of trophies – need for clear, expert evidence and properly completed Trophy Valuation Certificate. * Possession – seizure certificate and signing as evidence of possession. * Procedure – late alibi notice may be disregarded; failure to tender caution statement not necessarily fatal.
|
27 October 2025 |
|
|
27 October 2025 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove ownership/identify the alleged stolen pig, producing a fatal variance between charge and evidence.
Criminal law – Theft – Elements of theft (ownership, identification, asportation) – Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Importance of special marks/description of alleged stolen property – Variance between charge and evidence – Chain of custody considerations.
|
24 October 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove irreparable harm; matrimonial status alone insufficient—interim injunction dismissed.
Interim injunctions – Atilio v. Mbowe test (prima facie case; irreparable injury; balance of convenience) – Prima facie established but irreparable loss not proven; matrimonial status alone insufficient to show non-compensable harm – Application for temporary injunction dismissed.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
An order striking out for unsigned plaint is appealable and signature omissions are curable; case remitted for rectification.
Civil procedure — Appealability — Order striking out suit may be final and appealable; Pleadings — Order VI Rule 14 CPC — requirement to sign pleadings; omission of party’s signature is a curable procedural defect, not an incurable nullity; New issues on appeal — appellate courts will not entertain fresh matters; Pleadings — signature by authorised officer valid under Order VI Rules 14–15; Legal capacity — whether civil society organisations can sue or be sued (not determined).
|
23 October 2025 |
|
High Court lacks jurisdiction after a notice of appeal; a notice of appeal does not automatically stay execution.
Appellate jurisdiction – effect of lodging notice of appeal; High Court divested of jurisdiction over proceedings giving rise to the appeal; a notice of appeal does not automatically stay execution; stay of execution requires an order from the appellate court (Rule 11(3), Court of Appeal Rules 2009).
|
22 October 2025 |
|
Review application dismissed: no apparent error on the face of the record; costs remain at court’s discretion.
Civil procedure — Review jurisdiction — apparent/manifest error on face of record; Appealability — Order XL r.1(r) and Order XXXVII (injunction and related rules); Costs — discretion under s.36 CPC; Competency of appeal from magistrate’s orders.
|
17 October 2025 |
|
Primary court lacked jurisdiction over a tenancy dispute; respondent ceased as administratrix and cannot be sued absent fraud.
* Probate/administration — administratrix who has discharged duties — liability only where administrator acted fraudulently or exceeded mandate.
* Civil jurisdiction — Primary Court lacks jurisdiction over land/tenancy disputes; such matters belong to the District Land and Housing Tribunal.
* Pleadings — suit must correctly plead capacity and cause of action when suing an estate representative.
* Appellate review — appellate court properly nullified trial proceedings for want of jurisdiction and properly evaluated the evidence.
|
17 October 2025 |
|
Illness and old age without proof of incapacitation do not excuse an eight-month delay; extension refused.
Extension of time — sufficient cause — applicant’s illness and advanced age — requirement to account for entire period of delay — role and duty of legal representative where leave was granted to file submissions — delay of eight months unjustified.
|
17 October 2025 |
|
Leave for judicial review denied because absence of essential inquiry records prevented a prima facie case.
* Judicial review – leave to apply for prerogative orders – requirements: arguable case, timeliness, sufficient interest, absence of alternative remedy.
* Procedural requirement – Judicial Review (Procedure and Fees) Rules r.11 – duty to annex documents relied upon.
* Leave stage – prima facie assessment; court may refuse leave where essential inquiry records are missing.
* Administrative law – alleged denial of hearing and bias – assessment dependent on inquiry record.
|
16 October 2025 |
|
Appeal dismissed: tribunal had jurisdiction; respondent proved ownership; decree valid; locus visit unnecessary.
Land law — Ward Tribunal mediation certificate — jurisdiction of District Land and Housing Tribunal; Decree vs judgment — correspondence of reliefs; Proof of ownership — balance of probabilities, burden shift; Acquisition by clearing virgin land — pleading requirement and Village Land Act constraints; Locus in quo — discretionary, required only in exceptional factual conflicts.
|
15 October 2025 |
|
Annexed Ward Tribunal mediation certificate sufficed for jurisdiction; applicant proved ownership on balance of probabilities; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – Ward Tribunal mediation certificate as jurisdictional prerequisite – annexure suffices where not disputed; Decree must reflect reliefs granted; Burden of proof in land ownership – balance of probabilities and effect of corroboration; Acquisition by clearing virgin land – requirement to plead and timing vis-à-vis Village Land Act; Locus in quo visits are discretionary, only for exceptional conflicts.
|
15 October 2025 |
|
Improperly admitted exhibit expunged; revisional court may decide merits, but objector failed to prove ownership so attachment allowed.
Exhibits — improper admission after close of evidence and failure to read contents; Revisional jurisdiction — District Court powers under s.22(2) Magistrates' Courts' Act; Burden of proof — party alleging ownership must prove on balance of probabilities; Attachment — property subject to execution when ownership not established.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Written exchange and supporting witness evidence outweighed oral allocation claims; appeal allowed and appellant declared owner.
Land law – proof of title – burden on claimant – standard: balance of probabilities; Written exchange agreement vs oral claims/backdating; Requirement for village allocation proof (minutes/testimony) for transfers of village land; Relevance of unrelated exhibits (mango-tree dispute) to title; Appellate re-evaluation of evidence.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove breach; deed of gift and registration made the defendant the lawful owner.
Land law; sale agreement alleged but unproduced — burden of proof and requirement to tender written contract; deed of gift and registration — lawful transfer; certificate of title as prima facie/conclusive proof of ownership; dismissal for failure to prove breach.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
A primary court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding a land ownership dispute under probate; judgments quashed.
Probate jurisdiction – Property reported as part of an estate – Probate court competent to determine objections as to property inclusion; Primary Court lacks jurisdiction to determine pure land ownership/possession disputes; Evidential requirements – authenticity and sufficiency of written sale agreements; Concurrent findings of fact – appellate interference where findings are perverse or demonstrably wrong.
|
9 October 2025 |
|
Primary and revisional courts lacked jurisdiction over a pure land ownership dispute presented as a probate matter.
* Probate jurisdiction – Whether a probate court may determine if a property forms part of an estate – probate court has such jurisdiction when dispute legitimately arises from estate administration. * Jurisdictional limits – Primary Courts lack jurisdiction to determine pure land ownership disputes; such matters must be heard by competent land forums unless incidental to succession. * Evidence – Requirements for valid sale agreement (description/size, signatures, witness corroboration); oral evidence and occupation at time of death relevant to proof of ownership. * Appellate review – Concurrent findings of lower courts should not be disturbed unless perverse or demonstrably wrong.
|
9 October 2025 |
|
Whether the appellant was liable for an unpleaded balance and entitled to commission under the contract.
Contract – supervision of organic cotton – proof of production – burden of proof on claimant; Contractual commission tiers (100% vs <60% targets) – entitlement to reduced commission where production below threshold; Civil procedure – parties bound by pleadings – reliefs not pleaded should not be awarded; Evidence – absence of linkage between advanced funds and appellant’s receipt defeats claim for repayment; Appellate review – re-evaluation of evidence and variation of trial court’s decree.
|
9 October 2025 |
|
Failure to attach the impugned order to a revision application is fatal and justifies striking out the application.
* Civil procedure – Revision – requirement to attach the impugned order or proceedings – completeness of record for revision. * Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – failure to attach order fatal and curable only where record provides terms; overriding objective cannot override mandatory requirements. * Execution – garnishee order nisi – interlocutory orders and revisability considerations.
|
3 October 2025 |
|
Identification at night, unsupported alibi, and medical proof of traumatic amputation led to conviction and 30-year sentence for grievous harm.
* Criminal law – Acts intended to cause grievous harm – s.222(a) Penal Code – traumatic amputation qualifies as grievous harm under s.5. * Identification – night identification – Waziri Amani factors applied (prior acquaintance, lighting, duration, proximity, dock identification). * Defence of alibi – notice requirements under s.200 Criminal Procedure Act; failure to substantiate alibi. * Sentence – custodial term in respect of unprovoked machete attack causing permanent loss of limb.
|
3 October 2025 |
|
Accused convicted of murder on credible identification and circumstantial evidence; sentenced to mandatory death under the Penal Code.
Criminal law – Murder – Proof beyond reasonable doubt; identification at night; circumstantial evidence; alibi credibility; parties to offence (s.22 Penal Code); malice aforethought; mandatory death sentence (s.197).
|
3 October 2025 |
|
Res judicata not established; respondents proved ownership on balance of probabilities, appeal dismissed.
* Land law – proof of title – possession and allocation by deceased father – balance of probabilities required.
* Res judicata – same parties, subject matter and issues required; Explanation 6 inapplicable without evidence of representative litigation.
* Burden of proof – lies on party alleging facts in their favour; slight boundary variances not fatal if ownership proved.
|
3 October 2025 |
|
Taxing officer misinterpreted Order 55(3); instruction fees partly allowed (TZS 7,000,000) but prosecution fee claim dismissed.
Advocates' Remuneration Order — interpretation of Order 55(3) (fees for attending taxation) vs. instruction fees; Order 64 (advocate finally on record to draw single bill); taxation principles — discretion in allowance of instruction fees; burden to prove court attendance time allocations.
|
1 October 2025 |
|
Taxing officer misapplied Order 55(3); instruction fees partly allowed (TZS 7,000,000) and 15‑minute allocations upheld.
* Advocates’ Remuneration Order (Order 55(3)) – fees for attending taxation distinct from instruction fees
* Instruction fees – allowance discretionary; advocate finally on record duty to present bill (Order 64)
* Taxation – purpose is indemnity not enrichment; court reluctant to disturb taxing officer absent wrong principle
* Court attendance – claimant bears burden to prove time spent; uniform allocation may be upheld if unsupported
|
1 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
Where a statutory right of appeal exists under land dispute regulations, revision is inappropriate absent exceptional circumstances.
Land procedure – Revision versus appeal – Where Regulation 24 of the Land Disputes (District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations grants a right of appeal to the High Court, litigant must appeal rather than seek revision; revisional jurisdiction reserved for exceptional circumstances, blocked appellate process, absence of appeal, or non-party status. Execution proceedings – Appeal does not bar execution.
|
30 September 2025 |
|
Failure to record assessors' opinions and improper recording of evidence vitiated tribunal proceedings; retrial ordered.
Land procedure — assessors' opinions — must be solicited, recorded, read to parties and made part of the record; failure is fatal. Procedure — trial record — evidence must be recorded in narrative form, not Q&A or dots; improper recording vitiates proceedings. Remedy — quash and set aside judgment and order retrial before different chair and assessors.
|
26 September 2025 |
|
Accused found legally insane at the time of killing; not guilty of murder and ordered detained as mentally disordered offender.
Criminal law – Insanity defence – Court-ordered psychiatric observation – Expert psychiatric report accepted – Special finding under s.235(2) CPA – Detention as mentally disordered offender under s.235(3)(a) CPA; Proof of killing by eyewitness and postmortem establishes actus reus.
|
26 September 2025 |
|
The applicant's revision was dismissed as time-barred; alleged eCMS delays were unproven and did not excuse late filing.
* Labour law – Revision of CMA award – Time limitation under section 92(1)(a) ELRA – six-week filing period; * Limitation – Law of Limitation Act s.3(1) – consequence of filing out of time is dismissal; * Civil procedure – preliminary objection on time-bar must be determined first; * Electronic filing – alleged eCMS delays require evidence or application for extension to excuse lateness.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
The appellant's challenge fails: unresolved land ownership and variance between charge and evidence undermined the prosecution's case.
Criminal law – criminal trespass and malicious damage – proof beyond reasonable doubt – unresolved ownership of land – material variance between charge sheet and evidence – second appeal standard to disturb concurrent findings.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
The respondent's termination of the applicant was procedurally and substantively unfair due to investigative and notice failures.
Labour law – unfair termination – procedural fairness under rule 13 (investigation, formal charge, evidence and mitigation) – employer’s duty to follow own disciplinary code – substantive fairness of dismissal for unauthorised absence (requirement of prolonged absence).
|
19 September 2025 |
|
An appeal allegedly lodged but lost in the court’s electronic system constituted sufficient cause for extension of time.
Extension of time – application to file appeal out of time – sufficiency of cause where electronic filing went missing – reliance on Mumello v. Bank of Tanzania – delay not inordinate – absence of opposition or demonstrated prejudice.
|
17 September 2025 |