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

Visit website

https://jmap.judiciary.go.tz/jmap/jmap-hc

12 judgments

Advanced search

Court registries

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

12 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
April 2009
Omary s/o Chimpele @Milanzi vs Republic (DC. Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2008) [2009] TZHC 613 (20 April 2009) Appellant acquitted of forgery due to missing payroll evidence but theft convictions by public servant upheld based on audit and witness evidence. Criminal law – Forgery (ss. 333, 337 Penal Code) – insufficiency of evidence where alleged documents not produced and no handwriting expert; Criminal law – Theft by public servant (ss. 270, 265 Penal Code) – conviction sustained where audit report and witness testimony establish custody and failure to account for public funds; Evidence – necessity of producing primary documents and expert proof for forgery allegations.	20 April 2009
Zawadi d/o Kilembe vs Republic (DC. Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2008) [2009] TZHC 612 (15 April 2009) An equivocal plea and inadequate factual narrative vitiated the appellant's conviction; conviction quashed and retrial ordered. Criminal law — Plea of guilty — Equivocal plea — Requirement to record accused's words — Facts must disclose ingredients of offence (fraudulent taking and intent) — Unsafe conviction — Quash conviction and order retrial.	15 April 2009
Stanley Matembo vs Hajo Hyera and Another (DC Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2007) [2009] TZHC 418 (9 April 2009) Leave granted to appeal on whether circumstantial evidence can prove adultery and on s.160 presumption of marriage. Family law – Law of Marriage Act (ss. 41, 42, 43, 160) – presumption of marriage – whether registration or formal ceremony required; proof of adultery – admissibility and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence; appellate procedure – raising defence under s.72(2) suo motu.	9 April 2009
Stanley Matembo vs Hajo Hyera and Another (DC Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2007) [2009] TZHC 633 (9 April 2009) Leave to appeal granted to consider whether marriage registration, presumption under s.160 and circumstantial proof of adultery were correctly applied. * Family law – Law of Marriage Act – validity of marriage – effect of registration and presumption under section 160; whether registration is prerequisite for validity. * Evidence – adultery – proof by circumstantial evidence versus requirement for direct or corroborative facts (found locked in guesthouse room). * Precedent – alleged misinterpretation of section 160 by earlier cases (Zacharia Lugendo; Francis Leo). * Procedure – raising statutory defences (s.72(2)) suo motu at appellate stage.	9 April 2009
March 2009
Emerith Mbawala vs Rogers Liganga (PC Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2007) [2009] TZHC 619 (19 March 2009) The Primary Court lacked jurisdiction over the tenancy/land dispute; the appeal was dismissed and no costs awarded. * Jurisdiction – Land Disputes Courts Act (Cap. 216 R.E.2002) – section 3(c) grants District Land and Housing Tribunal power to determine land disputes; section 4 excludes lower courts. * Jurisdictional bar – Primary/ Magistrate’s Courts lack power to hear matters falling under Land Disputes Act. * Procedural consequence – where court lacks jurisdiction case cannot be entertained and appellate court may dismiss appeal without addressing merits or locus standi.	19 March 2009
Steven Adam Ndomba vs Boniface Lwena (Pc. Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2005) [2009] TZHC 342 (18 March 2009) Failure to consult assessors rendered the Primary Court judgment void and a retrial was ordered. Criminal procedure – Primary Courts – mandatory consultation and recording of assessors' opinions (rule 3(1)–(3), GN.2/1988); procedural irregularity rendering judgment void; appellate power to order retrial (s.29(b), Magistrates' Court Act).	18 March 2009
Rahina Mohamed vs Bakari Hamisi (Misc. Civil Application No. 5 of 2008) [2009] TZHC 267 (17 March 2009) Application for leave to seek mandamus dismissed; court cannot revisit its final judgment (functus officio). * Remedies – mandamus – suitability where relief sought is against a private party rather than public authority; * Civil procedure – functus officio – finality of High Court judgments and inability to revisit decided matters; * Appeal – Court of Appeal is the proper forum to challenge a High Court decision; * Enforcement – possession of property as a practical remedy to enforce judgment.	17 March 2009
Philbert Mbepera vs Municipal Director of Songea (DC Civil Case No. 7 of 2008) [2009] TZHC 605 (16 March 2009) A dismissed employee cannot claim night allowance; dismissal letter upheld and appeal dismissed with no costs. * Employment law – dismissal – effect of dismissal on post-termination claims for allowances; * Teachers Service Commission regulations (GN 459) – transport/repatriation allowances on termination or dismissal (s.67(1)(e), s.69(c)); * Evidence – allegation of forgery of dismissal letter; burden to prove forgery; * Civil procedure – appeal against District Court finding on entitlement to post-termination benefits.	16 March 2009
Francis Herod Muba vs Inspector General of Police and Another (DC Misc Civil Application No. 2 of 2007) [2009] TZHC 632 (12 March 2009) An improperly verified affidavit renders a judicial application incompetent and may be struck out despite exhaustion of administrative remedies. Administrative law – judicial review remedies (mandamus, certiorari, prohibition) – exhaustion of local remedies; Procedural law – affidavit verification requirements under Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Ordinance Cap.12 and Oaths Act No.59 of 1966; Procedural consequence – defective affidavit renders application incompetent and subject to striking out.	12 March 2009
Francis Edward Chengula vs Republic ((Dc) Criminal Appeal No. 21/2008) [2009] TZHC 348 (2 March 2009) Presence in premises with stolen wires and inadequate explanation sustains conviction despite challenged night search. * Criminal law – Stealing – Conviction sustained where accused found in premises harbouring stolen property and failed to give satisfactory explanation. * Search and seizure – Police acting on informer and in immediate pursuit may lawfully search premises at night; absence of tendered seizure certificate did not vitiate prosecution in these circumstances. * Evidence – Credibility of police testimony upheld over accused's uncorroborated defence; co-accused's absence and failure to testify undermined defence.	2 March 2009
Francis Edward Chengula vs Republic (DC Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2008; Songea D/C Criminal Case No. 399/2006) [2009] TZHC 607 (2 March 2009) Appellant’s presence with stolen wires and failure to explain possession upheld conviction despite contested night search. * Criminal law — Theft — Presence in premises where stolen property is found — Failure to provide satisfactory explanation may support conviction. * Search and seizure — Night-time search — Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act — immediate search justified where police act on informer and suspects flee. * Evidence — Failure to tender seizure certificate and failure to summon absconding co-accused may weaken but do not necessarily defeat prosecution case.	2 March 2009
February 2009
Gaspary Mathias Mapunda vs Emma Kiwawa Konzo (DC Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2008) [2009] TZHC 628 (26 February 2009) Leave to appeal refused because the ownership dispute was factual and did not raise a point of law. * Civil procedure – application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal – leave refused where dispute is factual and no point of law arises. * Property law – proof of ownership – title deed as conclusive evidence in attachment/eviction proceedings. * Evidence – alleged sale agreement not shown to raise arguable legal point sufficient for leave to appeal.	26 February 2009