|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2005 |
|
|
High Court restores Primary Court divorce and asset division, finding District Court wrongly reversed on procedural and credibility grounds.
Family law – customary marriage – presumption under s.160 Law of Marriage Act – divorce for adultery under ss.107(2), 107(3) – validity of conciliatory board certificate – review of District Court reversal – division of matrimonial assets under s.114(1).
|
13 December 2005 |
|
|
12 December 2005 |
|
Prosecution of an economic offence without required zonal State Attorney consent renders proceedings null and void.
Criminal law – Economic offences – Requirement of prior consent of Director of Public Prosecutions or delegated zonal State Attorney under the Economic and Organised Crime (Control) Act – Prosecution without required consent renders proceedings null and void; insufficient evidence does not justify retrial.
|
7 December 2005 |
| November 2005 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where circumstantial evidence, lack of exhibits and unsupported admission left reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Circumstantial evidence must be watertight; failure to tender alleged stolen property or prove ownership undermines prosecution. Admissibility of admissions – no cautioned statement tendered. Right to summon witnesses/exhibits – procedural omissions affecting alibi.
|
30 November 2005 |
|
|
14 November 2005 |
|
Court quashed eviction, divided matrimonial assets prioritising children's welfare and upheld the divorce decree.
Family law – divorce – duty of court under Law of Marriage Act (s.108, s.114) to inquire into maintenance and division of matrimonial property; courts must consider welfare of children; improper referral to fresh suit on same asset dispute; unlawful pre-division eviction; appellate procedure – judgment required, not a ruling.
|
10 November 2005 |
|
|
9 November 2005 |
| September 2005 |
|
|
Whether a warrantless search under s.42(1)(b) and an undisputed cautioned statement sustain convictions for housebreaking and theft.
* Criminal law – Offences: housebreaking and stealing – conviction upheld.
* Criminal procedure – Search and seizure – section 42(1)(b) CPA: warrantless entry lawful where reasonable grounds exist to prevent loss or destruction.
* Evidence – Cautioned statement: properly recorded, undisputed, admissible and corroborative.
* Appeal – Findings of fact and sentence: trial court’s verdict and sentence not disturbed.
|
6 September 2005 |
|
Warrantless search under s.42(1)(b) and an unchallenged cautioned statement upheld; conviction and sentences affirmed.
Criminal procedure — Search without warrant under s.42(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Act — reasonable grounds and prevention of loss; Admissibility of cautioned statement — proper warning, voluntariness, not retracted; Corroboration by recovery and identification of stolen property; Appeal against conviction and sentence — sufficiency of evidence and appellate review.
|
6 September 2005 |
| August 2005 |
|
|
Applicant's long, uninterrupted cultivation established ownership; appellate court erred by relying on hearsay to reverse trial decision.
Land law – ownership by long uninterrupted possession; adverse possession/limitation (12 years); evidentiary law – inadmissibility and no weight of hearsay; appellate review – misappreciation of evidence cannot justify reversal of trial court findings.
|
25 August 2005 |
|
Application to file a review out of time dismissed for unjustified 47‑day delay and failure to follow District Court directions.
* Civil procedure – application for leave to file review out of time – delay of 47 days – failure to justify delay under Law of Limitation.
* Procedure – non‑compliance with District Court order to rehear de novo and take additional evidence – improper pursuit of High Court appeal.
* Evidence – informal oral statements by registry officer insufficient to excuse delay; lack of supporting affidavits.
* Result – application dismissed; costs follow event.
|
22 August 2005 |
|
Failure to prove juvenile age by evidence justified varying a conditional discharge to concurrent custodial sentences.
* Criminal law – Proof of age – Accused’s claim of minority requires documentary or credible evidence (birth certificate) to benefit from juvenile sentencing; absence of proof renders accused an adult entitled to scheduled punishments. * Criminal procedure – Revision and variation of sentence – High Court may vary a trial court’s sentence where material facts (such as age) are unproven and sentence is inappropriate. * Procedural irregularity – Sentence passed without clear coram/mitigation noted but did not prevent substantive correction on revision.
|
22 August 2005 |
|
|
22 August 2005 |
|
Retrial ordered for failure to afford accused right to recall prosecution witnesses under section 234(2)(b).
Criminal procedure – substitution of charge during trial – non‑compliance with s.234(2)(b) Criminal Procedure Act (right to demand recall of prosecution witnesses) – admissibility of cautioned statement under Police Force Ordinance/ Law of Evidence – procedural irregularity vitiating trial – retrial ordered with credit for time served.
|
18 August 2005 |
|
An appeal from a Primary Court must be heard in the District where that Primary Court sits; hearing it elsewhere is void.
Magistrates' courts – jurisdiction – Appeals from Primary Courts must be filed and heard in the District Court where the Primary Court is situated; hearing an appeal outside that district is void – Sections 6(1)(b), 20(1)(b) and 35 of the Magistrates Courts Act; Order XXXIX rule 17(2) Civil Procedure Act – ex parte hearing where respondent absent.
|
2 August 2005 |
| July 2005 |
|
|
A co-accused’s confession may support conviction only if corroborated by independent evidence such as recent possession and identification.
Criminal law – confession of co-accused – section 33 Evidence Act – conviction not to be based solely on co-accused confession; corroboration required (recent possession, owner identification, police discovery) – defective charge but no miscarriage of justice.
|
18 July 2005 |
|
Only the accused found in possession of stolen property was properly convicted; convictions of others quashed for lack of evidence.
Criminal law – burden of proof – multiple accused – convictions cannot rest on uncorroborated statements or hearsay; co-accused statements not usable to convict others unless proper confession/corroboration (Evidence Act s33). Possession of stolen goods supports conviction for receiving stolen property (Penal Code s311). Trial procedure – requirement to rule on prima facie case and inform accused of defence rights (Criminal Procedure Act s23(1)).
|
13 July 2005 |
|
Presumption of marriage requires proven two-year cohabitation and public reputation; unproven, division of property was denied.
* Family law – Division of matrimonial property – Rebuttable presumption of marriage under s.160 (cohabitation for two years and public reputation) – burden of proof and requirement for independent evidence of reputation. * Limitation – Law of Marriage Act silent on limitation period for matrimonial petitions; dismissal on that ground is a misdirection. * Civil procedure – Appeal vs fresh suit – res judicata does not bar appeals to higher courts. * Remedies – Courts will consider delay, conduct (voluntary forbearance) and justice before ordering division or vacant possession.
|
12 July 2005 |
|
Acquittal upheld where respondents had honest claim of right and prosecution failed to prove malicious damage beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal procedure – appeals under Magistrates' Courts Act s.25 – procedural filing requirements and curability under Criminal Procedure Act s.388; Limitation – s.25(1)(b) 30-day rule; Penal law – honest claim of right (s.9 Penal Code) as defence to property offences; Proof of malicious damage – need for particularization and proof of mens rea; Civil v criminal forum – land title disputes to be resolved in civil proceedings.
|
11 July 2005 |
|
|
11 July 2005 |
| June 2005 |
|
|
Appellate court ordered demolition of the respondent’s encroaching structure to reopen a four‑metre passage and quashed lower courts' orders.
* Land dispute – encroachment onto claimed open space – proof of obstruction and remedy by removal of encroaching structure. * Civil procedure – Primary Courts Civil Procedure Rules – mandatory requirement to frame issues at first hearing; procedural non-compliance not necessarily fatal if no injustice results. * Appellate review – power to quash lower courts’ orders and grant appropriate remedial relief. * Costs follow the event.
|
30 June 2005 |
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction and five-year sentence for grievous harm upheld; TShs 500,000 compensation awarded to victim.
* Criminal law – grievous harm – sufficiency of prosecution evidence and medical evidence for conviction.
* Criminal procedure – appeal – refusal to entertain new facts not raised at trial.
* Criminal procedure – duty of accused to secure attendance of witnesses (s.231(4)) and court’s powers to issue process.
* Sentencing – appropriateness of five-year term for first offender.
* Compensation – ordering restitution under s.348(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
|
27 June 2005 |
| May 2005 |
|
|
|
6 May 2005 |
| April 2005 |
|
|
Representative lacked standing and altered contract documents failed to prove respondent’s misappropriation.
* Civil procedure – locus standi: representative’s capacity to sue for company funds; * Evidence – authenticity and probative value of altered documents; * Contract – party status and effect of later alterations; * Proof of misappropriation – burden and sufficiency of documentary/oral evidence; * Appellate review – treatment of doubts as to document genuineness and insufficiency of evidence.
|
19 April 2005 |
|
Application to set aside attachment dismissed as res judicata; court previously found tanker belonged to the legal representative and was attachable.
Civil procedure — Res judicata — Application to set aside warrant of attachment — Whether issue already decided — Attachability of property held by legal representative of deceased — Inventory insufficient to satisfy decree.
|
5 April 2005 |
| March 2005 |
|
|
A plea of guilty was equivocal because the facts read were insufficient to disclose the offence; conviction quashed, retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Plea of guilty – Statement of facts must disclose every constituent element of the offence – Plea must be unequivocal – Insufficient facts render plea equivocal – Conviction on equivocal plea quashed; retrial ordered – Credit for time already served.
|
23 March 2005 |
|
Appeal dismissed: issues not raised at trial cannot be entertained; contract and award upheld and increased for court fees.
* Contract — written agreement witnessed in primary court — delivery of goods and promise to repay in kind.* Limitation — whether suit time‑barred under Law of Limitation Act No.10 of 1971.* Civil procedure — appellate review — grounds not raised at trial cannot be entertained on appeal.* Quantum — valuation undisputed; award upheld and adjusted to include court fees.
|
22 March 2005 |
|
|
8 March 2005 |
|
|
8 March 2005 |