Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

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

3 judgments

Advanced search

Browse by year

Browse by month

Filter documents by title

Sort documents by

3 judgments


December 1978
Njama Samwel vs Republic (TDR Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1978) [1978] TZHC 179 (27 December 1978) Whether an inadmissible police confession can be displaced by independent admissible evidence to uphold a conviction. Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility of confession — Evidence Act s 27(1) — sentencing — Minimum Sentences Act, 1972 — Minimum statutory sentence for cattle theft	27 December 1978
August 1978
Seffu S/O Saidi vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 977) [1978] TZHC 327 (22 August 1978) Court quashed robbery conviction for lack of violence and substituted theft; convicted fourth accused of murder and sentenced him to death. Criminal law — guilty plea entered before court and admissions — substitution of conviction — voluntariness and effect Criminal law — Murder — distinguishing participation, common intention and accessory after the fact — proof of actus reus and mens rea where lethal cut inflicted with billhook — sentencing (death for murder, imprisonment for accessory) Criminal law — Robbery — requirement of force, violence or threat	22 August 1978
January 1978
Hussein Abdallah vs Republic (TDR Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1978) [1978] TZHC 356 (1 January 1978) Identification of articles and the doctrine of recent possession can sustain burglary/theft convictions when an accused fails to give a reasonable explanation. Criminal law — Burglary — Identification of stolen property by unique marks — Sufficiency of identification — doctrine of recent possession — Application where property recovered twenty‑three days after offence — Presumption against possessor Evidence — Circumstantial evidence and adequacy of accused’s explanation — Contradictory accounts by co‑accused	1 January 1978