|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2011 |
|
|
An application for leave to appeal filed after unwarrantable delay is incompetent; appeal struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – application for leave to appeal out of time – timeliness and competence – unwarranted delay under Customary Law Limitation Rules (Rule 5 GN.311 of 1964) – district court duty to determine competence before merits.
|
19 December 2011 |
|
A decree dated differently from the judgment renders the appeal incompetent and leads to striking out with costs.
Civil Procedure – Appeal competency – Decree must bear date of judgment and be signed (Order XX Rule 7 CPC); uncertified or improperly dated decree is not a decree in law and renders appeal incompetent; memorandum of appeal endorsement requirements; defective decree justifies striking out appeal with costs.
|
15 December 2011 |
|
Extension of time to appeal refused: illness unproven and application procedurally defective, dismissed with costs.
Limitation of actions – Extension of time under section 14 Law of Limitation Act – illness as cause of delay – evidentiary requirements for medical proof (affidavit/hospital records) – competency/clarity of chamber summons and proper framing of prayer under Civil Procedure provisions.
|
15 December 2011 |
|
A time-barred appeal lacking proper grounds may be summarily dismissed under section 28(3) of the Magistrates' Court Act.
Magistrates' Court Act s.28(3) – summary dismissal of appeals; time‑barred appeals; requirement to apply for extension of time; distinction between explanations and grounds of appeal.
|
14 December 2011 |
|
Convictions for trespass and malicious damage arising from a land dispute were quashed; land disputes should first be determined by Land Court/Tribunal.
Criminal law – Trespass and malicious damage arising from land dispute – Where dispute is essentially about land, it should ordinarily be determined by a Land Court/Tribunal before criminal prosecution; defective trial record may render convictions unsafe.
|
13 December 2011 |
| November 2011 |
|
|
Land tribunals lacked jurisdiction over a matrimonial property dispute; their proceedings were declared null and void.
Jurisdiction – Matrimonial property – Section 76 Law of Marriage Act (Cap. 29) – Ward and District Land and Housing Tribunals lack jurisdiction over disputes that are essentially matrimonial – Proceedings declared null and void; matter to be filed in competent court. Limitation – appeal time-bar noted but jurisdictional defect was decisive.
|
28 November 2011 |
|
Primary Court had jurisdiction over a TShs.4,035,000 false imprisonment claim; second appeal dismissed with costs.
* Civil procedure – Second appeal – appellate review confined to points of law; factual findings ordinarily not re‑opened on second appeal.
* Magistrates' Courts – Pecuniary jurisdiction – Primary Court may hear claims not exceeding TShs.5,000,000 (s.18, Cap.11 R.E.2002); claim of TShs.4,035,000 within jurisdiction.
* Tort – false imprisonment – award of damages upheld by concurrent findings of lower courts and sustained on appeal.
|
4 November 2011 |
| October 2011 |
|
|
Disputed front portion is an extension of Plot 35, not a separate Plot 35A; defendants’ allocation invalid and structures must be demolished.
Land law – title dispute – survey/site plan vs. title deed; Certificate of Title incorporating an extension; non‑existence of alleged Plot No.35A; allocation by letter of offer to non‑existent plot; administrative omission vs. fraud; illegal construction without permit; demolition; costs.
|
28 October 2011 |
|
Reported
Trafficking in narcotic drugs is peremptorily unbailable; absence of a valuation certificate does not authorize bail.
Criminal procedure — bail — committal courts' jurisdiction to admit to bail in High Court triable offences; Drugs Act/CPA — trafficking offences peremptorily unbailable; effect of commissioner's valuation certificate; statutory interpretation and legislative drafting defects.
|
13 October 2011 |
| September 2011 |
|
|
Applicant's challenge to custody, maintenance and cattle division dismissed; children's welfare and spouses' contributions upheld.
Matrimonial law — Custody: children's welfare (including special needs) paramount; Maintenance: assessment of payer's means and social/economic factors; Division of matrimonial property: spouses' contributions to acquisition/maintenance relevant (see Bi. Hawa Mohamed v. Ally Sefu (1983) TLR 32).
|
30 September 2011 |
Elections - Election Petitions - Res Judicata
Civil Procedure – Application of the Doctrine of Res Judicata – Striking Out of Improperly Filed Petitions
|
23 September 2011 |
|
Leave to appeal out of time granted due to applicant’s medical/surgical incapacity; land-jurisdiction issue reserved for appeal.
Civil procedure – extension of time/leave to appeal – sufficient cause – medical/surgical incapacity; evidence contested by respondent; jurisdiction – land dispute forum to be addressed on appeal.
|
23 September 2011 |
|
Unquantified general damages do not establish a court’s pecuniary jurisdiction; suit struck out for failure to plead specific monetary claim.
Civil procedure – Pecuniary jurisdiction – Determined by substantive pleaded claim, not unquantified general damages – Pleading requirement to state specific monetary claim – Court may raise jurisdiction suo motu.
|
23 September 2011 |
|
Court struck out plaintiffs' suit for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
* Civil procedure – Pecuniary jurisdiction – General damages do not determine pecuniary jurisdiction; jurisdiction must exist at filing. * Civil procedure – Remedy where court lacks jurisdiction discovered late – striking out suit to permit re-filing preferable to dismissal. * Costs – When jurisdictional defect is raised by the court suo motu, parties may be directed to bear their own costs.
|
20 September 2011 |
| August 2011 |
|
|
Appeal by the appellant against rape conviction dismissed; trial court’s credibility, penetration, age and sentence findings upheld.
Criminal law – Rape – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Penetration proved by medical and testimonial evidence – Age of complainant established – Compliance with section 312(1) Criminal Procedure Act – Appeal dismissed.
|
26 August 2011 |
|
Reported
Appeal dismissed: rape conviction and 30‑year sentence upheld on credible testimony and medical proof of pregnancy.
* Criminal law – Rape – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Victim testimony supported by medical evidence (pregnancy) and corroborative witnesses.
* Evidence – Medical evidence (PF.3) as proof of penetration.
* Criminal procedure – Requirement to give reasons for conviction – compliance with section 312(1) Criminal Procedure Act.
* Age – Complainant’s age established; consent immaterial where complainant a minor.
* Sentence – Custodial sentence lawful where offender found over 18.
|
26 August 2011 |
|
Failure to plead facts showing the court's jurisdiction is fatal; suit struck out with leave to refile.
* Civil procedure — Preliminary objections — Pleading requirement — Order VII r.1(f): plaint must state facts showing court's jurisdiction; mere assertion insufficient.
* Jurisdiction — Section 13 CPC — Suit must be instituted in the lowest court competent to try it; High Court's jurisdiction qualified.
* Amendment of pleadings — Order VI r.18 — timeliness and leave to amend (raised but not decided due to fatal jurisdictional defect).
* Remedy — Strike out with leave to refile where mandatory pleading requirement omitted.
|
19 August 2011 |
|
A revision application filed under the wrong statute was held incompetent and struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure – revision applications – competence – application filed under wrong statutory provision must be struck out; * Magistrates' Court Act s.25(1)(b) v. Civil Procedure Code s.77 – correct procedural basis for High Court intervention; * Preliminary objection – effect of concession by applicant; * Costs awarded on striking out for incompetence.
|
11 August 2011 |
|
Applicants granted leave to bring a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 after respondent raised no objection.
* Civil procedure – Representative suit – Order 1 Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code – Leave to represent other claimants in land dispute. * Land law – dispute over allocation by customary leader versus reserved land classification. * Procedural – effect of respondent’s non-opposition and absence of counter-affidavit on granting procedural relief.
|
11 August 2011 |
|
Applicant failed to prove sufficient cause for non-appearance; dismissal properly upheld and appeal dismissed.
Civil procedure — restoration of dismissed suit — Order IX Rule 9(1) (sufficient cause for non-appearance) — mis-citation of provision (Order IX Rule 13) — incompetence vs hearing on merits — admissibility and timing of documentary evidence — jurisdictional objection re: labour institutions (CMA) pre-enactment.
|
5 August 2011 |
|
Appeal struck out for defective, argumentative grounds; leave granted to refile and appeal held in time under Limitation Act.
• Civil procedure — Appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal — form: memorandum (Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC) not petition where law silent — grounds must be concise, unargued (Order XXXIX Rule 2 CPC).
• Limitation — section 19 Law of Limitation Act — time awaiting copies of judgment and proceedings is excluded.
• Statutory construction — Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No.2/2010 deleting "Land Division" did not abolish Land Division established under High Court Registries Rules.
• Remedy — defective/vague grounds justify striking out with leave to refile subject to limitation; costs awarded.
|
5 August 2011 |
| July 2011 |
|
|
Application to revise eviction struck out for incompetence because drawer’s endorsement and place of verification on affidavit were missing.
Land procedure – Chamber summons and affidavit – Requirement for drawer’s endorsement/signature under Advocates Act; Affidavit formalities – omission of place of verification; Competence of proceedings – incurable defects; Striking out with costs.
|
27 July 2011 |
|
Application struck out because chamber summons lacked drawer's signature and affidavit omitted place of verification.
Procedural law — Chamber summons and affidavit — requirement of drawer's endorsement/signature under Advocates Act — affidavit must show place of verification — defective documents render application incompetent — application struck out with costs.
|
26 July 2011 |
|
Extension application struck out because it was brought under an irrelevant statutory provision, rendering it incompetent.
Extension of time – competence – application founded on wrong statutory provision – section 38(1) Land Disputes Courts Act inapplicable to appeals from District Court – court not properly moved – application struck out with costs.
|
15 July 2011 |
|
Concurrent factual findings upheld: respondent proved ownership on the balance of probabilities; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – ownership dispute – assessment of evidence on balance of probabilities – weight of witnesses’ testimony – locus in quo/site visit – appellate review of concurrent findings of fact.
|
15 July 2011 |
|
Rape conviction quashed because s.130(2)(e) applies only to females under eighteen, but the charge alleged age eighteen.
* Criminal law – Rape – Section 130(2)(e) – element of age – provision applies only where female is under eighteen years. * Evidence – PF.3 admissibility – requirement to comply with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act. * Indictment defects – misnomer in charge sheet and limits on substituting convictions.
|
14 July 2011 |
|
Appeal struck out for defective petition lacking appellants' address and proper signatures; refile permitted subject to limitation.
Land procedure – Appeals – Petition formalities – Failure to show appellants' address and absence/improper signatures in designated column – Petition fatally defective – Appeal incompetent and struck out with costs; right to refile subject to limitation.
|
8 July 2011 |
|
Reported
Whether tribunal erred in declining a locus inspection and whether the earlier sale agreement gave the respondent priority to the plot.
* Land law – competing sale agreements – priority of purchase determined by date of sale agreement; absence of evidence of illegality defeats competing claim.
* Civil procedure – locus in quo – inspection is discretionary and exceptional; not mandatory without request or necessity.
* Judicial conduct – recusal/withdrawal – a chairman may withdraw for potential bias; successor may proceed.
* Evidence – weight of Ward Tribunal findings where respondent was not a party; district tribunal entitled to assess and consider such evidence.
* Remedies – village reallocation of alternative plots as a reasonable resolution of boundary disputes.
|
1 July 2011 |
| May 2011 |
|
|
An omnibus, contradictory chamber summons for extension and to depart scheduling order is incompetent and struck out.
Civil procedure – omnibus/conditional chamber summons – defective and contradictory pleadings – incompetence and strike out – unopposed application does not cure drafting defects – extension of time/scheduling order.
|
19 May 2011 |
| March 2011 |
|
|
The High Court held an appeal was timely where the court register and endorsement showed presentation within the 45-day limitation period.
* Civil procedure — Appeals — Limitation — computing the 45-day period for instituting an appeal — Order XXXIX Rule 9 (Civil Procedure Code) requires endorsement of presentation date and registration in the appeal register — registry entry controls date of filing.
* Preliminary objection — time bar — must establish actual date of admission/registration of memorandum of appeal.
|
18 March 2011 |
|
Confusion of hearing date without corroboration does not constitute sufficient cause to restore a dismissed suit.
Civil Procedure — Order IX Rule 4 — Restoration of suit dismissed for non-appearance — Applicant must show "sufficient cause"; mere confusion of hearing date without corroborative evidence (eg. registry clerk affidavit) is insufficient — Distinguishing Jehangir Emporium v Teema Garments.
|
16 March 2011 |
|
Appeal struck out because the order appealed against was not among appealable orders under the Civil Procedure Code.
Civil procedure – Appealability of orders – Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC (requirement to accompany appeal with copy of decree/order) – Sections 74, 75 and Order XL CPC (catalogue of appealable orders) – Preliminary objections – Competency of appeal – Labour-related disputes.
|
9 March 2011 |