High Court of Tanzania

This is the second level in the Judiciary justice delivery hierarchy. It has both appellate and original powers on civil and criminal matters. It also hears appeals from the Courts of Resident Magistrate, the District Courts, and the District Land and Housing Tribunals in exercise of their original, appellate and/or revisional jurisdiction. The High Court is divided into Zones and specialized Divisions. 

Physical address
24 Kivukoni Road, P O Box: S.L.P. 9004
22 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
22 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
December 2004
Where two sales conflict, the earlier valid sale prevails; unreliable seller testimony defeated the later purchaser's claim.
* Land law – competing sales – priority of sale – earlier valid sale prevails over subsequent sale. * Evidence – credibility of vendor – inconsistent testimony undermines purchaser’s claim. * Civil procedure – appellate review – when appellate court may reverse trial court despite locus in quo inspection.
14 December 2004
November 2004
Appeal allowed where prosecution failed to prove false pretences and intent to defraud; convictions and sentences quashed.
Criminal law – Obtaining credit by false pretences – Elements: incurring liability, false pretence, intention to defraud – Burden of proof on prosecution – Hearsay and inadequate police investigation – Conviction quashed.
17 November 2004
Conviction quashed where contradictory recovery evidence and uncorroborated repudiated confessions made the conviction unsafe.
* Criminal law – alternative verdicts – section 305 Criminal Procedure Act – permissible to convict on alternative offence under sections 294–296 when properly applied. * Evidence – repudiated confessions – conviction unsafe without independent corroboration. * Evidence – contradictions in recovery evidence – material inconsistencies can undermine prosecution case. * Criminal procedure – joint charges – benefit of doubt must be applied consistently to all accused when identity of perpetrator is not proven.
17 November 2004
Conviction quashed where contradictions, lack of exhibits and no clear link failed to prove appellant received stolen property.
* Criminal law – Alternative verdicts (s.375 Criminal Procedure Act) – Permissible but requires proof connecting accused to alternative offence. * Evidence – Burden of proof – Recent possession and receiving stolen property – necessity of clear recovery, identification and exhibit. * Confessions/repudiated statements – need for independent corroboration. * Contradictory witness accounts and failure to tender exhibits undermine conviction. * Joint accused – where identity of perpetrator not proved, benefit of doubt applies equally.
17 November 2004
August 2004
Conviction quashed where identification and evidence were insufficient and trial judgment and jurisdiction were defective.
* Criminal law – cattle/stock theft – sufficiency of evidence – identification of stolen property by colour is weak. * Evidence – caution statement of one accused inadmissible against another. * Criminal procedure – requirement under s.312(1) Criminal Procedure Act for points, decision and reasons in judgment. * Jurisdiction – Stock Theft Ordinance applies only to specified districts; court lacked jurisdiction in Ruvuma region.
11 August 2004
July 2004
Appeal dismissed: subordinate court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, appellant failed to prove 90‑day notice, and no cause of action existed against TRA.
Government proceedings – mandatory 90‑day notice to sue the Government – proof of service required; Civil jurisdiction – subordinate/district court pecuniary limits at time of filing; Corporate personality – statutory creation of Tanzania Revenue Authority and lack of contractual relationship means no cause of action against TRA for pre‑existence employment claims.
29 July 2004
Appeal dismissed: subordinate court lacked jurisdiction and appellant failed to prove statutory notice or cause of action against TRA.
Civil procedure – jurisdiction of subordinate courts – pecuniary jurisdiction and improperly constituted proceedings; Government Proceedings – requirement to give and prove 90‑day notice before suing the State; Corporate personality – Tanzania Revenue Authority distinct from Ministry, no cause of action where newly constituted corporate body did not employ claimant.
20 July 2004
Victim’s reliable visual identification upheld; alibi rejected as unspecific; illegal three-year burglary sentence increased to five years and appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – visual identification; reliability factors (opportunity, lighting, prior acquaintance); corroboration not required in proper circumstances; alibi must be specific to material time; judicial remarks and bail cancellation after case to answer; minimum sentence correction for burglary.
12 July 2004
Victim's reliable visual identification upheld; vague alibis rejected; unlawful three-year burglary sentence increased to five years and appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – visual identification by victim and bystander; conditions for reliability (time, distance, lighting, prior acquaintance). * Evidence – No general requirement for independent corroboration of an adult victim’s identification evidence absent special circumstances. * Criminal procedure – Alibi – requirement of specificity as to material time; vague alibis properly rejected. * Judicial conduct – Remarks at close of prosecution do not necessarily amount to pre-judgment if a ‘case to answer’ was properly found. * Sentencing – Minimum Sentence Act – custodial sentence below statutory minimum is unlawful and must be corrected on appeal.
12 July 2004
June 2004
Unreliable identification and conflicting testimony in darkness produced reasonable doubt and an acquittal for alleged murder.
Criminal law – murder – identification in darkness – reliability of eyewitness evidence – right to pursue/arrest suspected intruder – contradictions in prosecution witnesses – doubts to benefit accused; alternative verdict of manslaughter considered but not adopted.
23 June 2004
23 June 2004
Appellate court quashed conviction where prosecution evidence was contradictory, uncorroborated and failed to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – possession of firearm – sufficiency of evidence and corroboration – contradictions between prosecution witnesses – admissibility under s.34B(2)(a) Evidence Act – burden of proof in criminal cases – private seizure of exhibit and potential self‑interest.
18 June 2004
May 2004
Recent possession (recovered ~38 days later) can sustain burglary and stealing convictions; substituted lesser conviction was wrongly imposed.
* Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Application of doctrine of recent possession – Recovery of stolen goods 38 days after offence may be reasonable depending on nature of articles. * Trial error – Substitution of lesser offence (possession of suspected stolen property) where evidence supports conviction for original counts. * Benefit of doubt – Accused’s plausible explanation and corroboration can justify acquittal. * Restitution – Seized property to be returned to rightful owner; wrongful fines refundable.
21 May 2004
21 May 2004
11 May 2004
April 2004
Out‑of‑time appeal dismissed where appellant gave no reason for delay despite procedural errors in lower courts.
• Civil procedure – execution by attachment – objection proceedings – need to hear evidence and determine locus standi before dismissing objections on ground of delay. • Civil procedure – appellate review – necessity for appellate courts to give reasons for decisions. • Limitation – appeals to High Court – time bar under section 25(b) Magistrate’s Courts Act and discretion to extend time requires an explanation for delay.
15 April 2004
Wrongful joinder does not automatically vitiate proceedings, and borrowing from others does not alone defeat liability to a lender.
* Civil procedure – misjoinder – wrongful joinder of defendants does not necessarily vitiate proceedings or constitute a miscarriage of justice; * Evidence – separate borrowings – borrowing from others does not automatically negate liability to another lender.
5 April 2004
Appeal dismissed where earlier civil marriage presumed monogamous and objection procedure raised registrar competence and evidentiary issues.
Marriage law – Law of Marriage Act 1971 – s10(2) presumption of monogamy for civil marriages; s20(1)/s21(1)(a) objection procedure via registrar; competence to forward objections where no notice of intention registered; validity concerns where intended marriage to be officiated by unlicensed person; evidentiary threshold for showing hardship or notorious character to block intended marriage.
5 April 2004
March 2004
A prior public naming of a man as father under local custom estops a woman from later denying paternity.
Paternity — estoppel by prior naming under local customary law; Declaration of Local Customary Law ss.183–184; second appeal — prohibition on raising new issues; customary-law questions and absence of assessors.
31 March 2004
Under local customary law, a woman who names a man as father is estopped from later denying paternity.
* Family law – paternity – effect of a mother’s prior naming of a father under local customary law – estoppel under Declaration of Local Customary Law (secs. 183–184). * Appellate procedure – second appeal – new issues of custom not raised below cannot be introduced; need for assessors or evidence on customary practice.
31 March 2004
Revision dismissed; magistrate properly adopted expert valuation and compensation stands; possession follows full payment.
Land dispute — compensation for permanent crops — valuation by District Agricultural Officer — magistrate’s adoption of expert report — standard for revision — compensation payable before transfer of possession.
31 March 2004
Extension of time to appeal denied where delay was attributed to an agent but allegations were uncorroborated and insufficient.
Limitation of time – application for extension of time to appeal – delay attributed to agent (labour officer) – applicant’s allegations about third party unsupported by affidavit – courts will not act on uncorroborated assertions about another’s conduct.
29 March 2004