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

1,024 judgments

Advanced search

Court registries

All years

Filters

Filters
Judges

Agatho, J.A.

Barthy, J.

Itemba, J.

Kilimi, J.

Mnyukwa, J.

Mugeta, J.

Muruke, J.

Mwaipopo, J.

Mwaseba, J.

Omari J

Opiyo, J.

Rwizile, J.

Sarwatt, J.
Outcomes

Accept the invitation extended to us by the learned counsel of the parties and hereby invoke our power of revision bestowed upon us under section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 141 of the Revised Edition 2019, quash and set aside the entire proceedings and judgment of the trial court together with subsequent orders, further direct that Land Case No. 46 of 2014 be set down for trial after the Registrar of Titles is joined as a party in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC,

Access acquited

Accordingly the application allowed, that means, if this application is not granted, the respondent will proceed to evict the applicant from the suit premises. For that matter, execution of the decree in Land Case No. 16 of 2017 (Mruma J.) dated 23rd April, 2021 is hereby stayed pending the determination of Civil Appeal No. 431 of 2021.

Accordingly, the execution of the decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Tanga in Land Case No. 7 of 2007 is hereby stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal on the following conditions: (i) The applicant desists from disposing of or in any way alienating the suit property. (ii) The applicant executes and deliver to the Registrar of the Court a bank guarantee of USD 300,000,000.00. within 30 days from the date hereof. (iii) The applicant executes and deliver to the Registrar of the Court within the same period, a bank guarantee of TZS 151,133,333.33 being the decretal sum and interest inclusive as of the date of the filing of the application for execution. (iv) Costs to follow events.

Accused person acquitted

Accused person be kept in a mental health Hospital, as a mental disordered offender

Accused person convicted

Affirmed

After receiving the Medical Officer's report regarding the appellant's mental health, his trial shall then commence afresh before another Judge. Meanwhile, the Court order for the appellant to remain in remand custody.

All in all, given the circumstances of the case, the Court satisfied that the prosecution managed to prove the offence of murder against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, the Court see no cogent ground to fault the trial courts' findings. Hence, this appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly the Court dismiss it in its entirety.

All said and done, the Court allow the appeal to the extent that there was no proper transfer of Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2020 from the High Court to the Resident Magistrate' Court for it to be heard and determined by a resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction. All the proceedings before the Resident Magistrates' Court including the judgment by S.B. Nsana SRM Ext. Jurisd are a nullity, order the High Court record in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2020 be remitted to the High Court for it to deal with it according to law, direct that the appeal be expeditiously heard and determined. Meanwhile, the appellant has to remain in prison custody awaiting to prosecute his appeal before the High Court.

All said and done, the Court satisfied that the charge was proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution did successfully establish that it is the appellant and no other who committed the shameful act of raping and sodomising his step daughter. In the circumstances, there is no cogent reason to fault the concurrent indings of the two courts below. The Court find the appeal not merited which is hereby dismissed.

Allow appellant's appeal, quash conviction, set aside the sentence imposed on him and proceed to order his immediate release from custody unless otherwise lawfully held

Allow the appeal and proceed to quash and set aside the impugned conviction and sentence, the appellant should be promptly released from prison, unless otherwise incarcerated in accordance with the law.

Allow the appellants' appeal in its entirety, further proceed to order the appellants to be released from prison forthwith unless they are otherwise lawfully held.

Allow the first ground of appeal and hold that, the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt

Allow the second appellant's appeal and order his immediate release from prison if he is not otherwise being held lawfully.

Allowed the 3rd ground of appeal. going forward direct that the record to be remitted to the trial court for the hearing de novo.

Appeal allowed , accordingly quash the appellant's conviction and substitute it with an acquittal resulting into setting aside the sentence imposed on the appellant, consequently, order for immediate release of the appellant from prison unless he is being held for some other lawful cause

Appeal allowed and order the appellant to be released from custody unless he is otherwise held for other lawful cause (s).

Appeal dismissed in its entirety.

Appeal Allowed with costs

Appeal No. 619 of 2022 allowed to the extent indicated and strike out Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2023

Appeal Struck out with costs

Appeal allowed

Appeal allowed and consequently, quash the proceedings of both the Tribunal and the High Court and set aside the resultant Judgments

Appeal allowed and order that the appellants be released from prison forthwith if no other justifiable cause holds them therein.

Appeal allowed on the strength of the third ground

Appeal allowed the appellant's conviction is quashed and the sentence meted out to him is set aside, henceforth, order the immediate release of the appellant from prison if he is not otherwise retained for some other lawful cause

Appeal allowed the appeal, nullify the trial court's proceedings, quash conviction and set aside the appellant's sentence, order a retrial of the appellant before a competent court upon receipt of a valid consent from the DPP. In the meantime, the appellant shall remain in custody pending retrial.

Appeal allowed , further quash the conviction against the appellant and set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant.

Appeal allowed , quash conviction of murder against the appellant and set aside the sentence of death passed, and substitute for a conviction of manslaughter.

Appeal allowed accordingly, nullify and quash the judgment of the High Court and set aside all consequential orders, remit the case file to the High Court for composing a judgment after hearing the parties on the new issues, make no order as to costs to the parties as none of them is blameworthy of the path taken by the 1st appellate court.

Appeal allowed and order that the appellants shall be released forthwith from custody if not held therein lawfully on another cause.

Appeal allowed and quash the appellant's conviction, set aside his sentence of death; and finally order his immediate release from prison, unless he is held there for any other lawful cause

Appeal allowed quash and set aside the appellant's conviction for murder and sentence of death

Appeal allowed the appeal thereby quash the appellants' conviction and set aside the sentences meted against them. We order their release from prison forthwith unless held for other lawful cause(s).

Appeal allowed, consequently quash the conviction, set aside the sentence and the subsequent order made thereof, further make an order that the appellant be immediately set free unless held for some other lawful cause.

Appeal allowed, consequently, nullify and quash the judgment of the trial court in Civil Case No. 10 of 2013 dated 6th November, 2020 and set aside the decree thereof, accordingly, order the case file to be remitted to the trial court for it to compose a fresh judgment in accordance with law.

Appeal allowed, conviction for the offence of murder is thus quashed and the sentence meted out thereat is accordingly set aside, in the end order the immediate release of the appellant, if not lawfully held for some other causes.

Appeal allowed, for that reason, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence, order the immediate release of the appellant if he is not in custody for some other lawful cause.

Appeal allowed, the judgment, proceedings and the decree of the Mining Commission are hereby quashed and set aside. Further, direct the Mining dispute No. 04 of 2022 between the parties herein be heard afresh and expeditiously by another Arbiter according to the prevailing laws.

Appeal allowed, nullify the proceedings and judgment, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence by the trial court, do the same to the proceedings and judgment of the High Court sustaining the trial court's decision, hereby order the appellant to be released from prison forthwith if not held therein for any other justifiable cause.

Appeal allowed, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence of thirty years imprisonment imposed on the appellant, consequently, the court order the immediate release of the appellant from custody unless his incarceration is in connection with other lawful causes.

Appeal allowed, quash conviction and set aside the appellant's death sentence, immediate release of the appellant from prison unless held for other lawful cause.

Appeal allowed, quash conviction and set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant, the appellant should be released from prison forthwith, unless held for other lawful cause.

Appeal allowed, quash the appellant's conviction and set aside the sentence meted out on him by the trial court and subsequently sustained by the first appellate court. We order for the appellant's immediate release from prison if he is not otherwise detained for some other lawful cause.

Appeal allowed, quash the appellant's conviction and set aside the sentence. The appellant should be released from prison forthwith unless he is held for other lawful cause

Appeal allowed, quash the appellant's convictions and set aside the sentences imposed on all counts by the trial court and sustained by the High court, order that he be set free forthwith if not held for any justifiable cause.

Appeal allowed, quash the appellants' convictions and set aside their sentences, order the appellants to be released forthwith from prison, unless they are otherwise lawfully held.

Appeal allowed, quash the conviction and set aside the death sentence that was imposed on the appellant, further the court order immediate release of the appellant from prison unless his continued incarceration is otherwise lawfully justified.

Appeal allowed, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence and the appellant be immediately set free unless held for some other lawful cause.

Appeal allowed, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence imposed on him. We further order the appellant be released from the prison forthwith unless he is otherwise lawfully held

Appeal allowed, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant, order that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless he is held for some other lawful cause.

Appeal allowed, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence order the appellant's release immediately if his continued incarceration is not for another lawful cause.

Appeal allowed, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. We further order the immediate release of the appellant from prison unless he is otherwise lawfully held.

Appeal allowed, quash the conviction, set aside the sentences meted out against the appellants. We further order that, the appellants be released forthwith from custody unless held for other lawful reasons

Appeal allowed, quash the convictions and set aside the sentence the appellants be immediately set free unless held for some other lawful cause.

Appeal allowed, quash the judgment of both lower courts and set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant, order the appellant's immediate release if he is not being held in custody for some other lawful cause.

Appeal allowed, quash the proceedings in relation to the appellant and the conviction entered, set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant and order that the Tshs. 500,000/= he paid as fine in lieu of imprisonment be refunded to him,

Appeal being unmeritorious, is dismissed in its entirety.

Appeal devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

Appeal dismiss it entirely

Appeal dismiss it in its entirety

Appeal dismiss it in its entirety with costs

Appeal dismiss it on its entirety

Appeal dismissed

Appeal dismissed with costs

Appeal dismissed in its entirety

Appeal dismissed it entirely

Appeal dismissed with costs to the third respondent

Appeal failed

Appeal fails and dismissed

Appeal fails in its entirely, thus dismissed.

Appeal fails in its entirety and is accordingly dismissed

Appeal granted

Appeal has merit to the extent explained in the second limb of ground 3. In view of the irregularity in relation to the assessor, the court quash and set aside the judgment of the Tribunal, the proceedings and judgment of the first appellate court, going forward, the court direct that the record of the DLHT be remitted expeditiously with a view to composition of a judgment afresh upon the remaining assessor filing his written opinion to be read to the parties in accordance with the law.

Appeal has no merit and it is dismissed in its entirety.

Appeal has no merit and it is dismissed it with costs

Appeal is accordingly dismissed

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated in this judgment with costs.

Appeal is allowed with a direction that the petition be remitted back to the High Court for assignment to a single Judge to determine the preliminary objections raised in the Reply to Petition and further steps according to the law. This being a public interest litigation the Court will not make an order for costs.

Appeal is allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside. The appellants are to be set at liberty forthwith, unless otherwise lawfully held.

Appeal is barren of fruits and we accordingly dismiss it in its entirety

Appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn upon the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days after its lodgment for failure by the respondent to institute the appeal upon been issued with the certificate of delay each party to bear its own costs

Appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed it.

Appeal is devoid of merit and dismiss it.

Appeal is devoid of merit, accordingly, dismiss it

Appeal is devoid of merit, and hereby dismiss it with costs.

Appeal is devoid of merit, and hereby dismiss it with costs.

Appeal is devoid of substance and dismiss it with costs.

Appeal is dismissed in its entirety with costs

Appeal is dismissed in its entirety, for lack of merit.

Appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

Appeal is found to be devoid of merits and we thus dismiss it. This being an employment matter, The Court make no order as to costs.

Appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of merits.

Appeal is hereby dismissed under section 3 (1) of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 R.E 2019 for being time barred.

Appeal is hereby dismissed with costs for being unmerited.

Appeal is incompetent due to the defective record of appeal, consequently, we strike it out with costs.

Appeal is merited and it is hereby allowed and consequently, the Court quash and set aside the conviction and the sentence and order the immediate release of the appellant unless held for other lawful cause.

Appeal is meritorious and allowed, consequently, quash the appellants' convictions and set aside the sentences thereof, further order for the immediate release of the appellants from prison unless they are otherwise held for other lawful purposes.

Appeal is not meritorious and we accordingly dismiss it in its entirety.

Appeal is partly allowed

Appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the decision of the first appellate court and subsequently, the decision the trial Court is upheld. The appellant shall pay the respondent costs of this appeal.

Appeal is partly allowed to the extent shown herein above. In the circumstances and from the fact that the appeal arose from a labour dispute, we make no order as to costs.

Appeal is partly allowed, whereas, the conviction on the second count of unnatural offence is quashed and the respective sentence of life imprisonment is set aside, the conviction on the first count of rape and its respective sentence of thirty (30) years' imprisonment, are sustained.

Appeal is strike out

Appeal is struck out and the decision of the High Court nullifying the award of the CMA

Appeal is struck out the respondents shall have their costs

Appeal is struck out with cost

Appeal is therefore allowed, the conviction is quashed and the sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside, further orderd that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless he is being so held for any other lawful cause.

Appeal is thus dismissed with costs

Appeal is without any merit and it is hereby dismissed.

Appeal lacking in merit and proceed to dismiss it in its entirety.

Appeal nullified

Appeal partially allowed

Appeal partly allowed

Appeal partly is allowed

Appeal partly succeeds to the extent of the fourth and fifth grounds and fails to the extent of the first, second and third grounds, vary the judgment of the first appellate court so that the appellant's appeal thereat is dismissed to the extent of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd grounds and allowed to the extent of the 4th and 5th grounds. The awards of 40% value of the motor vehicle and possession of the two machines are quashed and set aside.

Appeal partly succeeds to the extent of the second and third grounds of appeal.

Appeal quashed

Appeal quashed and set aside the evidence of witnesses so that another Chairman shall hear witnesses afresh by administering oaths before taking their evidence.

Appeal stand dismissed with costs

Appeal stands dismissed in ground one nevertheless, in view of the illegality in the determination of ancillary reliefs by both the trial court and the first appellate court, constrained to exercise revisional power under section 4 (2) of the ADA to correct the illegality in the judgments of both courts consequently, quash the orders of division of assets and custody of children made by the first appellate court and the trial court for being a nullity.

Appeal strike out

Appeal strike out l with no order as to costs.

Appeal struck out

Appeal succeeds

Appeal succeeds to the extent of the fourth and fifth grounds and it is hereby allowed

Appeal succeeds to the extent stated, it being a matter falling within the realm of labour disputes, which, ordinarily, in terms of rule 51(1) 21 of the Labour Court Rules, 2007 - GN No. 106 of 2007.

Appeal succeeds, with the end result that the judgment of the High Court in relation to the appellant is quashed, and its orders set aside. Although the judgment of the District Court appears to be failing short for not apportioning damages.

Appeal to have no merit and dismiss it in its entirety

Appeal unmerited, the Court accordingly, dismiss it in its entirely.

Appeal without merit and, it is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Appeal, therefore, has merit and it is allowed, consequently quash the conviction and set aside the sentence imposed against the appellant further order for his immediate release from custody unless therein withheld for other lawful reasons.

Appeals are dismissed for lack of merit

Appellant be released from prison forthwith unless he is otherwise lawfully held

Appellant committed the offence with which he stood charged, the sentence of life imprisonment meted out on him was the minimum sentence prescribed by law and, therefore the position taken by the learned Judge is consistent with the facts of the case and the law. we have no reason to interfere with it, the net result of what we have said is that, we find no merit in this appeal which we accordingly dismiss in its entirety.

Appellant may re-file his suit in the Commercial Division of the High Court as per clause 14 of the Loan Facility Letter if he so wishes. Under the circumstances of this matter, we make no order as to costs.

Appellant shall be released forthwith from custody unless lawfully held therein

Appellant shall remain in custody awaiting his trial, unless admitted on bail

Appellant shall remain in custody pending retrial before a competent court, further order that, should the appellant be found guilty and convicted, the served time in jail should be included in the jail term to be imposed.

Appellant should remain in custody and another Magistrate with competent jurisdiction to entere a conviction in compliance with section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA)

Appellant should remain in custody pending being committed to the High Court for trial

Appellant was properly convicted on his own plea of guilty and was also properly sentenced, the appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

Appellant's appeal allowed, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence of thirty (30) years imposed upon the appellant further make an order of the immediate release of the appellant, John Mohamed, from prison unless he is otherwise lawfully held.

Appellant's appeal allowed, quash his conviction and set aside the custodial sentence imposed on him, proceed to order his immediate release from prison forthwith, unless held for some other lawful cause.

Appellant's appeal has no merit and accordingly dismiss it with costs.

Appellant's conviction and sentence were well-grounded and we find nothing on which to fault the concurrent finding of the two lower courts, accordingly, the court find the appeal barren of fruits and we dismiss it in its entirety.

Appellant, for the personal injuries suffered, is entitled to compensation in the form of special damages which, as we have found and held above, he specially pleaded and strictly proved as well as general damages grantable at our discretion. However, given that he contributed to the occurrence of the accident as already observed above, we order that he is entitled to only 75% of the total amount awarded as special and general damages, the decretal sum shall attract an interest of 7% at the court's rate from the date of judgment to the date of its satisfaction in full.

Appellants be released forthwith from prison, unless they be held there for other lawful cause.

Appellants should remain in custody pending composition and delivery of the judgment by the trial court

Applicant did not demonstrate any good cause that would entitle her to the sought extension, in the result, the application is not merited it is accordingly dismissed in its entirety.

Applicant has failed to comply with the two conditions listed under rule 11 (5) of the Rules, cumulatively. Consequently, for above given reasons, the appiication is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the assailed judgment of the Court is manifestly erroneous and unjust, in the event, the court dismiss the application with costs.

Applicant has not accounted for each day of the delay as required and has offended the requirement for a litigant to observe the time schedule for the taking of steps in judicial proceedings, accordingly proceed to dismiss the application with cost for the reasons stated above.

Applicant has not furnished sufficient grounds to warrant review of the decision of the Court in terms of Rule 66 (1) (a) and (b) of the Rules, in the upshot, we find the application to be wanting in merit and we accordingly dismiss it.

Applicant is granted extension of time to file a notice of appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of this ruling.

Applicant may make an oral application before the Court in the cause of hearing of the appeal to furnish the Court with the intended additional evidence

Application allowed

Application allowed for extension of time to file the appeal

Application allowed in part

Application be stayed

Application before the court is therefore time barred, it is dismissed with costs.

Application declared a nullity, quashed and set aside

Application dismissed

Application dismissed with costs

Application dismissed in it entirely

Application dismissed with costs

Application dismissed without costs

Application fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Application fails and is dismissed

Application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs

Application for extension of time granted

Application for reference before the High Court judge was incompetent since such court had no jurisdiction to entertain and determine it. Consequently, we find merit in the application and grant it.

Application for reference devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs.

Application for reference devoid of merit it is accordingly dismissed with costs

Application for reference is dismissed.

Application for review granted

Application for stay of the execution was filed out of time prescribed by rule 11(4) of the Rules and this issue is sufficient to dispose the application. In the result, the Court strike out the application with costs.

Application granted

Application granted and order the applicant within fourteen (14) days to file the intended written submissions.

Application granted for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal, on a condition that the USD 600,000.00 already deposited at the Judiciary account considered as a security for the due performance of the decree.

Application granted and order that the execution of the Judgment and Decree of the High Court (Land Division) in Land Case No. 60 of 2022 which was delivered on 7th March, 2023, be stayed pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2023 pending in the Court, further order that the applicants should deposit a Bank's Guarantee covering the value of the disputed land to the tune of 5 million Shillings as security for the due performance of the decree within thirty days from the date of the delivery of this Ruling.

Application granted pursuant to rule 11 (2) of the Rules and suspend the execution of the distress warrant issued pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal.

Application granted with costs

Application is allowed

Application is allowed, such that in terms of the provisions of rule 10 of the Rules, the applicant is permitted to institute an application for revision in this Court, and to do so within thirty days from the date of delivery of this ruling. Considering the circumstances of this matter, the Court make no order as to costs.

Application is devoid of merits which is dismissed with costs.

Application is devoid of merits, it is dismissed with costs.

Application is found to be meritorious and granted

Application is found to be time barred and dismissed with costs.

Application is granted

Application is granted, time within which an application for revision of the High Court decision in Land Case No. 66 of 2010 is to be filed, is extended under the circumstances of this case, the intended application for revision should be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of the delivery of this ruling.

Application is hereby adjourned to a future session of the Court

Application is hereby granted, the application for extension of time as a second bite to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of this ruling.

Application is hereby marked withdrawn with leave to refile under Rule 55 (1) and (2) of the Labour Court Rules, the same be refiled within fourteen (14) days from the ruling hereof.

Application is hereby struck out with costs.

Application is meritorious and thus granted..

Application is meritorious, it is granted as prayed, the applicant is given five (5) days reckoned from the date of delivery of this ruling within which to serve the respondent with the memorandum and record of appeal.

Application is strike out with costs

Application is thus, hereby granted

Application is unfounded and thus dismissed it with costs.

Application is unmerited and stands dismissed.

Application lacks merit and dismiss it with cost.

Application lacks merit and hereby dismiss it in its entirety

Application strike out

Application strike out with costs

Application struck out

Application struck out each party shall bear its costs

Application struck out from the statute book

Application struck out with costs.

Application with no merit and dismissed it with costs.

As this ground is sufficient to dispose of the appeal, the Court shall not address the rest of the grounds of appeal. Consequently, quash the judgment of the High Court and order a fresh hearing of the first appeal according to law. Meanwhile the appellant to remain in custody to wait for the re-hearing of the first appeal, which should be as soon as possible.

As to the way forward, the Court accede to the proposal by the learned Senior State Attorney. Hence, the Court invoke our revisional powers bestowed on us under section 4 (2) of the AJA and nullify the proceedings and judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for an expedited hearing of the appeal before another Judge. It is so ordered.

Based on the above findings, the Court satisfied that the charge against the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court allow the appeal, quash the appellant's conviction and set aside his sentence of 30 thirty years imprisonment. Finally, it is hereby ordered that the appellant shall be released immediately from prison, unless he is held for any other lawful cause.

Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court has constrained to hold that the appeal is unmerited and hereby dismiss it entirely.

Besides that,the Court considered the appellant's prayer to have the motor vehicle returned to him. Indeed, the record bears that the application for forfeiture was made and granted under section 9 (1) of the Proceeds of Crimes Act, Cap 256 (the PCA). In view of section 17 (1) of the PCA, having quashed the conviction upon which the forfeiture order hinged, the Court hereby order for the discharge of the motor vehicle, subject of the forfeiture order.

Both accused persons not guilty of the offence of Murder contrary to sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, [Cap 16, R.E. 2002] now [R.E 2022] as charged and proceed to acquit and immediate release from prison unless otherwise lawfully held.

Consequently, the Court allow the appeal, quash conviction and set aside the appellant's sentence, order immediate release of the appellant from prison unless otherwise he is lawfully held for other cause.

Consequently, and looking at the totality of the evidence, the Court entertain no doubt that with the available circumstances, the learned trial Judge properly held that the case against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Consequently, execution of the CMA award which was upheld by the Court on 27/05/2022 is hereby stayed pending determination of appeal, this order is conditional upon the applicant depositing a Bank's Guarantee for TZS 24,296,000.00, within thirty days from the date hereof. Because the application emanates from a labour dispute, where ordinarilythe Court do not award costs, each party shall bear their costs.

Consequently, for the above given reasons, the Court find the appeal devoid of merit and dismiss it in its entirety.

Consequently, in terms of section 4 (2) of the ADA, the court hereby quash the proceedings and judgment of the trial court and set aside the conviction and the sentence meted against the appellant, the record of this appeal shall be remitted to the trial court for retrial before another Judge in accordance with the law.

Consequently, the Court allow the appeal, quash conviction and set aside the appellant's 30 years imprisonment sentence. The Court hereby order the appellant to be released forthwith from prison unless otherwise lawfully held.

Consequently, the Court nullify the proceedings of the trial court which followed immediately after the ruling on a case to answer, also quash the trial court's judgment and set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant. In the same vein, the High Court's proceedings and judgment are as well quashed. Finally, the Court remit the trial court's record to the trial court and direct that, having duly complied with section 231 of the CPA, the same trial magistrate, if practicable, should proceed with hearing of the case by recording the appellant's defence evidence and composing the judgment, also direct that, should the trial court convict the appellant, section 172 (2) (c) of the CPA should be taken into consideration in as far as the sentence is concerned.

Consequently, the Court order that the stay of execution of the decree be conditioned on the furnishing, by the applicant, of a bank guarantee amounting to Euros 1,000,000.00. The bank guarantee should be furnished to the Court within sixty days from the date hereof. The applicant is further ordered to ensure that nothing dissipates the value of the bank guarantee for the entirety of the period of validity of the guarantee, make no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Court order that the trial court record in Criminal Case No. 349 of 2015 of the District Court of Momba at Chapwa be remitted to the said trial court (i.e District Court of Momba at Chapwa) before another Resident Magistrate with competent jurisdiction for him to expeditiously compose a fresh judgment in accordance with the law. In the event that the appellant is ultimately found guilty and convicted of the offence as charged, the sentence to be imposed at the time of sentencing him should take into account the period spent by him in prison from 22nd January, 2016 when conviction was improperly entered for the first time by the trial court up to the date of the conviction by the trial court as the Court has just herein ordered. In the meantime, the appellant shall remain in custody pending the composition and delivery of a fresh judgment of the trial court in accordance with the law.

Consequently, the Court proceed to grant the application on a condition that, the applicant has to furnish within 30 days a commitment bond to preserve a status quo of the disputed land until the intended appeal is concluded. It is so ordered.

Consequently, the Court take heed and grant leave to the cross appellant to lodge a supplementary record of appeal to accommodate the certified record of proceedings within sixty (60) days from the date of this decision. Costs to abide the outcome of the cross appeal.

Consequently, the Court allow the appeal, quash conviction and set aside the appellant's sentence, order his immediate release from prison, unless he is otherwise lawfully held.

Consequently, the entire appeal is struck out for being incompetent. Each party to bear own costs as the disposal of this appeal was based solely on the point raised by this court suo mottu. It is so ordered. Right of appeal explained.

Consequently, under section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141 Revised Laws, we quash the entire proceedings before honourable Ngaeje, SRM - Ext. Juris, and the resultant judgment and orders stemming from those proceedings. On the way forward, we order the record in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2021 to be remitted to the High Court for a hearing of the appeal or otherwise, properly transfer it to RM-Ext. Juris. For the foregoing, the Court allow the appeal, quash the proceedings, judgment and orders therefrom. In the meantime, the appellant shall remain in custody.

Consequently, while the Court allow the appeal by quashing conviction and setting aside the corresponding sentence on the second count, dismiss the appeal on the first count. For avoidance of doubt, the appellant shall continue to serve his thirty years imprisonment for his conviction on the first count.

Conviction quashed

Coss-appeal is partly allowed

Court allow the appeal based on these two grounds, accordingly, the court quash the conviction and set aside the sentence, the court order the release of the appellant from prison immediately unless he is being held for other lawful cause.

Court find merit in the appeal and we allow it. Accordingly, quash the conviction, set aside the sentence and order that the appellant be immediately set free unless held for some other lawful cause.

Court find merit in the appeal which accordingly allow, order for the immediate release of the appellants from prison if they are not otherwise detained for some other lawful cause.

Court find merit in this Application considered opinion that the applicants gave plausible reasons which amounted to good cause to warrant extension of time under rule 10 of the Rules. Consequently, the applicants are given 60 days from the date of delivery of this ruling to lodge their memorandum and record of appeal.

Court is of the view that the application for stay of the execution was filed out of time prescribed by rule 11(4) of the Rules. this issue is sufficient to dispose this application and the determination of the two points of objection raised by the respondent's counsel will be superfluous. In the result, the court strike out the application with costs

Court partly allow the appeal and the result effect is that, we quash the conviction and set aside the sentence imposed upon the appellant and the compensation order for payment of TZS. lm to each victim. We further make an order of the immediate release of the appellant, Ibrahim Eston, from prison unless he is otherwise lawfully held.

Court satisfied that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, allow the appeal, quash conviction and set aside the life imprisonment sentence imposed on the appellant, order his immediate release from prison unless otherwise he is lawfully held.

Defendants liable for defamation and, hereby grant Plaintiff reliefs.

Dismissed the appellant's appeal in its entirety

Dismissed the second respondent's preliminary objection

During the pendency of the impending appeal, the applicants should not do anything that will dissipate the value of the bank guarantee issued as security

Execution of the Award in Execution No. 12 of 2024 pending before the Land and Housing Tribunal at Chato is hereby stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal on condition that; the applicants execute within fourteen days from the date of delivery of this ruling, a written bond undertaking to vacate from the suit land as ordered by the High Court in case the appeal is not decided in their favour.

Exercising the revisional powers under section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141, nullify the proceedings and the decision of the High Court which dismissed the appeal of the appellant and make an order that the hearing of Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2020 should proceed accordingly, this point suffices to dispose of the entire appeal, as such find it unnecessary to deliberate on the ground of appeal raised by the appellant.

Finally, and in view of the above discussion, the Court allow the appeal and quash the appellant's conviction. His sentence of thirty years imprisonment is hereby set aside. The Court finally order his immediate release from prison, unless he is held there for any other lawful cause.

Finally, in exercise of our revisionary powers provided for under section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, the Court quash the proceedings and all orders that were made by the DLHT in Land Application No. 14 of 2016, equally quash the proceedings and all orders in the first appellate court in Land Appeal No. 21 of 2020. As for this appeal, strike it out with no order as to costs, since parties are from one family.

Finally, the Court allow the appeal, reverse the decision of the High Court and hold that the appellant was not at any material time reinstated in her former employment as was required by law consequent to the order of the Minister, the Court make no order as to costs, since the dispute behind this appeal was a labour matter.

Finally, to the above extent, this application partly succeeds and partly fails, in which case, the Court make no order as to costs.

Flowing from the foregoing, it is clear that good cause has been shown for the granting of extension of time. Consequently, the Court hereby grant it. make no order for costs in order to revive harmony amongst the parties who are relatives.

For the aforegoing reasons, it is our settled view that the single Justice, who had all the material facts before him, judiciously exercised his discretion to grant extension of time based on the second ground of illegality which, the Court think that, it is a serious point of law which cannot be brushed aside. Conclusively, the Court found no reason to fault the decision of the learned single Justice, and hereby dismiss the application with costs.

For the avoidance of doubts, nullify the proceedings, quash the judgment and set aside the sentence, order the record to be remitted to the High Court for a retrial according to law, meanwhile the appellant shall remain in custody.

For the foregoing reasons and being guided by the aforementioned authorities, the appeal is allowed solely on the ground raised by this court suo mottu. The conviction is hereby quashed and the sentence is set aside. Further, I order that the appellant be released from custody and be set free forthwith unless he is held for some other lawful cause. Order accordingly

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismiss the appeal and direct that the record of the DLHT be remitted back for it to proceed with application for execution (Application No. 88/2013) and determine objections, if any. The respondent to have costs of this appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court do not find any cogent reasons to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts, as we are satisfied that the evidence taken as a whole establishes that the prosecution's case against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the event, the Court find the appeal devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby dismiss this appeal for lack of merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hold that the appellant has not substantiated the merits of the appeal which accordingly dismiss with costs.

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is lacking in merit and consequently, the Court hereby dismiss it in its entirety.

For the foregoing, the Court view that, the applicant has complied with the requisite conditions outlined for a stay of execution order to be granted as stipulated under rule 11 of the Rules. In view of the circumstances of the matter at hand, the application is allowed, and it is hereby ordered that execution of the decree in Land Case No. 12 of 2008 dated 17th March, 2023 is stayed pending the hearing and final determination of the appeal. This order is conditional upon the applicants depositing a bank's guarantee of US$ 14,400 as a security for the due performance of the decree within a month to be reckoned from the date of delivery of this ruling. I make no order as to costs.

For the interest of justice of the case, the Court decline making an order for retrial as persuaded by the counsel for the parties. As a result, in exercise of our revisional power under section 4 (2) of the AJA, nullify all the proceedings in the trial and first appellate courts, the Court proceed to quash conviction and set aside the appellant's thirty (30) years imprisonment sentence, order immediate release of the appellant from prison unless otherwise, lawfully held.

For the interest of justice, in exercise the court revisional powers under section 4 (2) of the AJA, the Court nullify the proceedings and judgments of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2018 of 21st July, 2020 and in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2022 of 16th August, 2022 subject of the present appeal, as well, nullify the proceedings and judgment of the trial court from 21st July, 2017 up to 17th June, 2021 when the appellant was convicted and sentenced vide Criminal Case No. 33 of 2015 subject of Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2022 which is also a subject of the present appeal whose proceedings and judgment, the Court already nullified, as well restore the proceedings and first judgment of the trial court of 29th December, 2015 which convicted and sentenced the appellant andrestore the proceedings and first judgment of the trial court of 29th December, 2015 which convicted and sentenced the appellant and the order of reconviction and sentence of 4th April, 2018, further order for a retrial before

For the interest of justice, in exercise the court revisional powers under section 4 (2) of the AJA, the Court nullify the proceedings and judgments of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2018 of 21st July, 2020 and in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2022 of 16th August, 2022 subject of the present appeal, as well, nullify the proceedings and judgment of the trial court from 21st July, 2017 up to 17th June, 2021 when the appellant was convicted and sentenced vide Criminal Case No. 33 of 2015 subject of Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2022 which is also a subject of the present appeal whose proceedings and judgment, the Court already nullified, as well restore the proceedings and first judgment of the trial court of 29th December, 2015 which convicted and sentenced the appellant andrestore the proceedings and first judgment of the trial court of 29th December, 2015 which convicted and sentenced the appellant and the order of reconviction and sentence of 4th April, 2018.

For the reasons discussed the Court dismiss the appeal against conviction as it has no merit bearing in mind that not only did the prosecution witnesses prove the case but even the appellant advanced it. The Court however allow the appeal in respect of the sentence and vary it accordingly for the reasons shown earlier. The appellant shall serve a sentence of 30 years imprisonment instead of the imposed life imprisonment which we hereby set aside. Except for the variation in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.

For the reasons stated above, the Court satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause for her failure to timely file the intended application for revision and therefore, the Court allow the appeal, Consequently, the ruling and orders of the High Court in Miscellaneous Labour Application No, 10 of 2021 dated 20th August, 2021 are quashed and set aside and substituted with an order granting the application as prayed. The appellant is accordingly ordered to file her application for revision within thirty (30) days from the date of this Judgment. From the nature of the dispute, the Court order that each party shall bear own costs.

For the reasons stated above, the Court has convinced that the prosecution case was tainted with serious potholes rendering involvement of the appellant in the murder of Ligwa Matemani doubtful, the appeal has merit and the Court allow it, quash the trial court's conviction and set aside the sentence rendered to the appellant, the Court hereby order that he be released forthwith if no other cause holds him behind the prison bars.

For the reasons stated above, the application has merit and is hereby granted. Accordingly, the execution of the decree of the High Court dated 25th August, 2023 in Land Appeal No. 234 of 2023 is hereby stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal. The said stay is, however, subject to the applicant depositing in the Court within thirty days of the delivery of this ruling a bank guarantee for the sum of TZS. 191,664,000.00. Accordingly, the said guarantee shall remain in force until full hearing and determination of the intended appeal by this Court. In default, the order of stay shall lapse automatically. In the circumstances, costs shall follow events.

For these reasons, the Court order that, the record be remitted to the trial court for the case to be heard afresh from the stage where the first trial commenced. Meanwhile, the appellant shall remain in custody pending his retrial which, direct, should be expedited.

For those reasons, the Court grant this application and hereby order stay of execution of the decree of the High Court (Land Division) in Land Case No. 51 of 2016, until determination of the intended appeal. This order is on condition that the applicants execute a bond committing to maintain the status quo of the suit land subject of the decree within sixty (60) days from the date of delivery of this ruling. Costs shall abide the main cause.

For those reasons, this application has not met the threshold for this court to exercise the discretion to grant bail pending appeal. As the result, the application is hereby dismissed for want of merit. Order accordingly.

From the foregoing therefore, the interest of justice demands that the applicant be granted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal on the impugned judgment within sixty (60) working days from the date hereof. Each party shall bear their costs.

From the foregoing, it may be apparent that, effective remedies to address the appellant's complaints exist within the ordinary laws and, therefore, the petition, as correctly decided by the High Court, was premature for want of exhaustion of the available remedies. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for being without merits. This being an appeal arising from the enforcement of the basic rights and duties, the Court shall not give an order as to costs.

General damages arising from the appellant's act of unlawfully evicting the 1st respondent and her children thereby causing them mental anguish and inconvenience, the amount of TZS 30,000,000.00 will meet the justice of the case, therefore, reduce the amount of the general damages awarded by the trial court to the above stated amount. The amount shall attract interest at the court's rate of 7% from the date of the trial court's judgment to the date of full payment this is in accordance with Order XX rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, Chapter 33 of the Revised Laws.

Given the nature of the evidence on record, the Court satisfied that ordering a fresh summing up will serve the ends of justice. On the way forward invoke our revisional jurisdiction under section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 141 R.E. 2019) to quash and set aside the impugned judgment, the entire summing up and resultant opinions of assessors. It is further directed that the case file be returned to the trial court for it to conduct a proper summing up to assessors according to the dictates of the law. In the meantime, the appellant to remain in custody to await the resumed proceedings and decision as ordered above

Having evaluated the evidence on record, the court satisfied that would have reached to the same conclusion reached by the learned trial judge, the court also find that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and arrived into a proper conclusion this takes the court to dismiss the fourth and fifth grounds entirely, in the event, the court dismiss the appeal with costs

Having expunged the documentary account of the prosecution as alluded to, on record there is no other evidence to prove the charge against the appellants. Consequently, the Court find the appeal merited and it is allowed, direct immediate release of the appellants from custody unless lawfully held for some other reasons.

Having said so, the Court hereby grant the application for stay of execution of the decree in Labour Revision No. 366 of 2022, originating from Labour Dispute No. CMA/DSM/KIN/380/2020/178/20/20 subject to applicant giving security for the due performance of decree in a form of a bank guarantee of the decretal sum within sixty (60) days from the date of this ruling. The order is made, pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal. Costs be in due course.

Having so reasoned, the application is misconceived, incomplete and premature for lack of a decree to be stayed, Consequently, the court strike out with no order as to costs because the dispute originate from religion.

Hearing of appeal is adjourned to another convenient sessions of the Court as it will be fixed by the Registrar after the intended additional evidence has been taken and certified to the Court by the trial court.

Hearing of the appeal is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar.

In a nutshell, the prosecution did not discharge its duty of proving the case to the standard required, therefore, the appeal is merited and it is allowed. Consequently, the court order the immediate release of the appellant forthwith unless if held for some other lawful cause.

In conclusion, and looking at the totality of the evidence, the Court entertain no doubt that with the available circumstances, the trial court properly held that the case against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the event, and for the foregoing reasons, the Court find the appeal devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

In conclusion, based on the discussion in this appeal, save for the order the Court made expunging exhibit P19, this appeal is without merit, and dismiss it.

In conclusion, the Court do not find any cogent reasons to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Court satisfied that the evidence taken as a whole established that the prosecution's case against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court find no merit in the appeal and we hereby dismiss it in its entirety.

In conclusion, the Court satisfied that, no good cause has been shown for the granting of extension of time. Consequently, the Court hereby dismiss the application with costs for being unmerited.

In conclusion, therefore, the respondent neither breached the contract nor any existing law, in attaching the security in question as a measure to recover the outstanding loan. The appeal is thus without merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs.

In conclusion, while the Court allow the appeal on the second count and proceed to quash the conviction and set aside the sentence on it, the Court dismiss the appeal as regards the first count. For avoidance of doubt, the appellant shall continue to serve his thirty years imprisonment on the first count.

In consequence of the foregoing, the Court find merit in the appeal and we allow it. Accordingly, quash the conviction, set aside the sentence and make an order that the appellant be immediately set free from custody unless held for some other lawful cause.

In consequence of the foregoing, the Court find the appeal barren of fruits. Accordingly dismiss it.

In consequence, the proceedings and judgments of the High Court, DLHT are nullified as they were based on an erroneous judgment of the Ward Tribunal. Parties are at liberty to institute fresh proceedings in a competent forum under the law and procedure.

In exercise of our revisional powers in terms of section 4(2) of the ADA, proceed to substitute the said sentence with the minimum sentence of thirty years imprisonment which was imposed by the trial court, for the foregoing reasons, and to the above extent, the appeal is partly allowed and partly disallowed.

In exercise of our revisional powers under section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 141 R. E. 2019, quash and set aside the dismissal order by the High Court in Revision No. 47 of 2016 and, in lieu thereof, substitute it with an order striking out the application.

In fine, the Court allow the appeal and order the record of appeal of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2021 to be remitted back to the High Court for compliance with the law, the Court also direct the appeal hearing to be expeditiously conducted. Meanwhile, the appellant has to remain in prison custody.

In fine, the appeal against conviction is dismissed but the appeal against sentence is partially allowed.

In light of what the Court has endeavored to discuss find the appeal is without merit and dismiss it entirely.

In sum, the Court find nothing blemished in the conduct of the DLHT and the finding of the High Court on this aspect. We, in consequence, hold that this appeal is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the Court dismiss it with costs.

In terms of Rule 11 (5) (b) of the Rules, the court order the applicant to deposit with the Registrar of the Court an irrevocable bank guarantee in the sum of USD 357,926.061, the intended bank guarantee should be amenable to renewal to cover the whole period until the pending appeal is determined and it should be deposited within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.

In terms of section 4 (2) of the AJA, we quash the proceedings and resultant judgments of both lower courts set aside the sentences meted out against the appellants and order for an expedited retrial before another magistrate with competent jurisdiction.

In the Court resolve, therefore, allow the appeal. Consequently, nullify the proceedings, quash the convictions and set aside the sentences meted out to the appellants. In the circumstances, the Court order the immediate release of the appellants from prison if they are, or any one of them is, not otherwise retained for some other lawful cause.

In the circumstances of this application, the Court inclined to grant this uncontested application and order stay of execution of the decree in Commercial Case No. 153 of 2013, on condition that the applicant deposits a bank guarantee at the tune of TZS. 324,189,305/= not later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order. Costs shall abide the main cause. It is so ordered.

In the circumstances of this application, the Court inclined to grant this application as the Court hereby do in terms of rule 11 (3) and (5) of the Rules, on condition that the applicant deposits a bank guarantee in favour of the respondent at the tune of TZS. 466,800,000/= not later than 60 days from the date of this Order. Costs to abide the results of the intended appeal.

In the circumstances, the Court invoke the provisions of section 4 (2) of the AJA to revise, nullify and quash the proceedings in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2021 for being a nullity.

In the circumstances, the Court order that, the record be remitted to the trial court for the case to be heard afresh from the stage where the first trial commenced. Meanwhile, the appellants shall remain in custody. the Court equally order for the said retrial to be expedited.

In the circumstances, the Court remit the case file to the DLHT at Dodoma and direct that Misc. Land Application No. 110 of 2021 be heard afresh and expeditiously by another chairman and a new set of assessors. It is so ordered.

In the circumstances, we remain with no option other than agreeing with Ms. Makala that, having discarded the evidence of PW1, the remaining evidence on record is insufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction, it follows therefore that, the case against the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, allow the appeal, quash conviction and set aside the appellant's sentence, order immediate release of the appellant from prison unless held therein for a lawful cause.

In the end result, the Court hold that the appellant was properly convicted of the offence of rape contrary to section 131 (1) of the Penal Code. Consequently, his appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed in its entirety.

In the end, the Court allow the application and waive the requirement for service on the 2nd and 3rd respondents with the notice of appeal and the letter requesting to be supplied with proceedings, judgment and decree. The applicant may proceed with other steps necessary for the realisation of the appeal. In the circumstance of the present application, the Court make no order as to costs.

In the end, the Court do not find merit to the appeal. Accordingly, proceed to dismiss it with costs.

In the end, the Court find merit in the appeal. Accordingly, allow it by quashing and setting aside the judgments of the two lowers courts and the decrees arising therefrom, further make an order that the appellant and the 2nd respondents shall have their costs.

In the end, the Court find the appeal devoid of merit and hereby dismiss it in its entirety.

In the end, the court substitute the sentence imposed for a sentence that will allow the 1st and 2nd appellants to be released immediately from imprisonment unless otherwise held for other lawful purposes. All in all, the court dismiss the appeal, save for the sentence which we have substituted as stated herein.

In the event the Court find no merit in the cross appeal and dismiss it too. Given our conclusion on the two appeals, tye Court order each party to bear own costs.

In the event, and for the foregoing reasons, the Court find the application with merit and it is granted. Accordingly, the execution of the decree of the trial tribunal is stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal on condition that each of the applicants furnish a commitment bond, within 14 days from the date hereof that, the suit property shall remain in the same condition as it was on the date of pronouncement of the judgment, the decree of which is the subject of the execution at the executing court. No order as to costs in the circumstances.

In the event, and for the foregoing reasons, the court hereby dismiss the application in its entirety with costs.

In the event, and for the foregoing, the Court satisfied that the application at hand is meritorious. Accordingly, the Court constrained to allow it. Consequently, in terms of rule 89 (2) of the Rules, the notice of appeal filed by the respondent on 28th February, 2022 is hereby struck out. In the circumstances of the present application, the Court do not make an order as to costs. It is so ordered.

In the event, and on the basis of the foregoing findings, the Court satisfied that, the applicant has failed to show good cause to justify extension of time as sought. Consequently, the application is dismissed with costs.

In the event, the Court find that, this appeal has been brought without sufficient grounds, the Court thus hereby dismissed it in its entirety.

In the event, the Court find the appeal devoid of merit and dismiss it in its entirety.

In the event, the Court find the appeal lacking in merit and hereby dismiss it.

In the event, the Court sustain the preliminary objection and strike out the incompetent application with costs to the third respondent.

In the event, the appeal is found to be bereft of merit and the Court dismiss it with costs.

In the event, the appeal is hereby allowed, the appellant's conviction is quashed and the sentence is set aside. the Court consequently order refund of the fine, if paid.

In the event, the appeal is hereby allowed. The appellant's conviction is quashed and the sentence is set aside, the Court consequently order his immediate release from prison unless he is otherwise lawfully held.

In the final analysis, the Court allow the appeal, quash the appellant's conviction and set aside the sentence. He should be released from prison unless he is otherwise lawfully detained.

In the final analysis, the Court allow the appellant's appeal, quash the decree of the High Court, set aside the orders for paying both punitive and general damages as weil as waive the restraint order against the appellant and its associates. The appellant shall have costs of the case here and before the High Court.

In the final analysis, the Court find that the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly dismiss it in its entirety.

In the final analysis, the Court quash the appellant's conviction and set aside his sentence of life imprisonment. We further direct that, the appellant be released from prison and be set to liberty, unless he is held for any other lawful cause.

In the final analysis, the court satisfied that the appeal is not merited and accordingly dismiss it with costs.

In the final analysis, there is no evidence establishing the appellants' culpability to the required standard of proof beyond a speck of doubt. the Court allow their appeal, quash their respective convictions and set aside the sentences imposed to each of them, also order that they all be set at liberty immediately if not held in prison for another lawful cause.

In the final analysis, therefore, the Court find that the case against the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubts and allow the appeal, accordingly quash the appellant's conviction and set aside the sentence imposed against him. The appellant shall be released from the prison forthwith unless therein withheld for other lawful reasons.

In the final analysis, we decline to exercise our discretion in favour of the applicants, as we maintain that the matter at hand does not reveal any justifiable grounds for the delay in filing the amended record of appeal. Consequently, we dismiss the application with costs.

In the final analysis, we find that the appeal is devoid of merit and we accordingly dismiss it in its entirety.

In the final end, the Court sustain the objection and hereby struck out the appeal for being time barred. Being a labour matter no order for costs is made.

In the final result and for the foregoing reasons, therefore, the Court find the appeal devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

In the final result, both the appeal and cross appeal are without merit and are hereby dismissed. This being a labour matter, the Court make no order as to costs.

In the instant application, the High Court, as alluded to, dismissed the suit for being res judicata, so, to speak, there is no decree in the eye of the law capable of being executed and therefore, there is nothing so far amenable for stay in the end result, this application fails and it thus stand dismissed with costs.

In the light of the -ab ov e considerations we are constrained to agree with M/S Rwevongeza and Kalolb Bundala, learned counsel for Che appellants that the^e is merit in this appeal. Consequent ... draw the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence of death impose, the Court order the release from custody of the appellants forthwith unless otherwise held lawfully.

In the light of the above, this appeal has merit to the extent explained in ground four on costs and otherwise it is accordingly dismissed.

In the light of the foregoing, and looking at the totality of the evidence, the Court entertain no doubt that with the available evidence, the trial court properly held that the case against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court find no merit in the appeal and hereby dismiss it in its entirety.

In the premises, the Court find merit in the application and it is hereby granted. The applicant should lodge the memorandum and record of appeal within sixty (60) days from the date of delivery of this ruling. Considering the circumstances of this application, the Court make no order as to costs.

In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the Court exercise the power of revision under section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap. 141 to revise, nullify and quash the proceedings of the trial court with effect from 6th August, 2020 when the hearing commenced and set aside the decree in Commercial Case No. 11 of 2019. Consequently, the Court order the case file to be remitted to the trial court for a retrial. In the circumstances, we order that each party shall bear its own costs.

In the result, the Court grant the application for enlargement of time. The same should be lodged within fourteen days from the date of this ruling. Costs will be in the cause.

In the result, the Court allow the appeal, quash the appellants' convictions and set aside the sentences, the Court hereby order that they should be released from prison forthwith if not held for another lawful cause.

In the result, the Court dismiss the preliminary objection with costs. In the meantime, the Court order stay of execution of the decree in Commercial Case No. 79 of 2022, pending hearing and determination of the application. It is so ordered.

In the result, the court satisfied that the appeal is meritorious and thus allowed with costs. Consequently, quash the impugned judgment and decree and set aside the orders issued by the trial court.

In the results, the application is not merited. It is accordingly dismissed. Since the application arises from Labour matter, the Court make no order as to costs.

In the ultimate event, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence which are not supported by the Republic are respectively quashed and set aside, the appellant should be immediately released from custody if he is not otherwise lawfully detained.

In the upshot, the Court enjoined to strike out the appeal for the reasons stated above. Given the circumstances of this appeal, the Court make no order as to costs.

In the upshot, the Court find that the appeal is devoid of merit and we proceed to dismiss it. In the circumstances of the present appeal, the Court make no order as to costs.

In the upshot, the Court find that this appeal lacks merit and it is entirely dismissed. As the result, the Court hereby order the appellant to pay the respondent the outstanding amount of TZS 6,690,000/-. The mode of payment of the outstanding amount or execution of the decree is exclusively left to the discretion of the parties herein. No order as to costs.

In the upshot, the applicant has failed to account for the delay of such a couple of months. Consequently, the Court hereby dismiss the application with costs.

In the upshot, the applicant is granted extension of time to file an appeal. It ordered that the intended appeal should be lodged within sixty (60) days from the date of the delivery of the ruling. Considering the circumstances of this application, the Court make no order as to costs.

In the upshot, this application is meritorious. It is granted as prayed, the applicant is given thirty (30) days reckoned from the date of delivery of this ruling within which to file a Reference before the Court. In the circumstances of the application, the Court make no order as to the costs.

In these circumstances, the Court satisfied that the application has merit and therefore, it is granted. Consequently, the Court order that, the intended execution of the Decree of the Court of Resident Magistrate of Dar es Salaam at Kisutu in Execution No. 107 of 2023 be stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal. Since the applicants on 9th January, 2024 deposited security in a form of Bank Guarantee from Azania Bank PLC for the contested amount of TZS. 134,400,000.00 that security shall remain valid for twenty-four months renewable to cover the whole period until the appeal is conclusively determined. Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

In this appeal, as determination of the above two grounds of appeal has the effect of determining the entire appeal, the Court find no reason to engage in determining the other grounds of appeal. Finally, the Court allow the appeal and quash the conviction of the appellant. Further, the appellant's sentence of thirty years imprisonment is hereby set aside, and order his immediate release from prison, unless he is held there for any other lawful cause.

In totality, the court find the respondent as the intended appellant failed to take essential steps after lodging the notice of appeal, for her default in instituting the appeal timeously, in terms of Rule 89 (2) of the Rules, the notice of appeal is hereby struck out with costs.

In view of that, in terms of section 4 (2) of the AJA, the Court proceed to nullify the proceedings from the date of the 7th appellants death onwards, quash the judgment and set aside the decree of the High Court, further order for the case file to be remitted to the trial court for the parties to proceed in accordance with the taw or rather to apply for the necessary orders before the High Court as from time the 7th defendant had passed on, if they so wish.

In view of the above finding, the Court allow this application so that the raised issues may be considered by the Court. The applicant is granted 60 days within which to file the application for revision from the date of delivery of this ruling. Costs to be in the cause.

In view of the aforesaid, the Court find that the application for review is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed it with costs.

In view of the circumstance of this matter, the Court uphold the submission by the learned Principal State Attorney that the interests of justice in the matter at hand demand that there should be a retrial before the High Court. thus order the case to be tried afresh by a court of competent jurisdiction, subject to the consent of the DPP to prosecute the appellant. In the meantime, the appellant shall remain in custody to await the resumption of the trial.

In view of the foregoing, The Court thus order a stay of execution of the decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam in Land Appeal No. 315 of 2023 with the conditions that, first, the applicant shall not dispose of or alienate in any way the disputed property known as Plot No. 573, Block 10, Sukari Street, Mwananyamala "A" within Kinondoni Municipality and surrenders in Court a Certificate of Title for the disputed property within sixty (60) days from the ruling date. Second, the applicant is to deposit in Court a bank guarantee for the sum of TZS. 50,000,000/= within sixty (60) days, pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal. Costs in the application shall abide by the outcome of the appeal. It is so ordered.

In view of the foregoing, and having found that this appeal is time-barred, no need to address the second issue concerning the variation in the names of the parties in the records of DLHT and this court, accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs for being time barred.

In view of the foregoing, the Court find merit in the application and grant it. Accordingly, the notice of appeal lodged on 24th October, 2022 is struck out with costs. Ordered accordingly.

In view of the foregoing, we invoke our revisional powers under section 4(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141 R.E.2019 and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and nullify the proceedings thereof, further strike out the suit for being incompetent. Since the issue was raised by the Court on its own motion and, considering Mr. Mutakyamirwa's stance, the Court make no order as to costs.

In view of what the Court has endeavoured to discuss, quash and set aside the judgments and proceedings of all the courts below. Thus, the appeal is merited and it is allowed.

In view of what the Court has demonstrated above, the Court see no base to discuss other grounds of appeal. The appeal is merited and allowed, direct immediate release of the appellant from prison unless lawfully held on some other lawful cause.

In view of what the Court has discussed satisfied that the appeal has no merit and dismiss it. The Court make no order as to costs as this is a labour matter and no party pressed for it.

In view of what the Court has endeavoured to discuss above, the Court grant the prayer. Consequently, in terms of Rule 99 (1) of the Rules, order that the respondent should file a supplementary record of appeal which will include the pleadings in Commercial Case No. 128 of 2021 and the

In view of what we have endeavoured to discuss, having reevaluated the evidence before the trial court has found no cogent reason to fault the decision of the High Court. Thus, the respondent is entitled to pay the outstanding instalments to the 1st appellant. Consequently, the Court find the appeal not merited and it is hereby dismissed with costs.

Invoke revisional authority in pursuance of section 4 (2) of the AJA and quash the consequential order

Invoke revisional powers bestowed under section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, [Cap 141 R.E. 2019] and nullify the proceedings and judgment of the first appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2021, quash the upholding of conviction and sentence.

Invoke our revisional jurisdiction under section 4(2) of the AJA, quash and set aside the trial proceedings subsequent to the amendment order dated 7/2/2019, the impugned judgment and subsequent orders, further direct that, the case file be returned to the High Court for it to conduct an expedited trial given that the case file has been in the court corridors for the past 24 years.

Invoke revision powers under section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act [CAP 141 R.E.2019] and hereby quash and set aside the trial proceedings and the impugned judgment together with the subsequent orders, direct the case file to be returned to the High Court for an expedited trial prior to which parties should be required to amend the pleadings and join the Registrar.

Invoke the revisional powers under section 4 (2) of the Appellate jurisdiction Act [Cap 141, R.E. 2019], quash that part of the High Court order dated 10.12.2020 directing EBK to file its written statement of defence and nullify all the proceedings subsequent to that order

Invoke the revisional powers under section 4 (2) of the Appellate jurisdiction Act [Cap 141, R.E. 2019], quash that part of the High Court order dated 10.12.2020 directing EBK to file its written statement of defence and nullify all the proceedings subsequent to that order, also quash the resultant judgment and remit the record of Commercial Case No. 105 of 2020 to the High Court (Commercial Division) for retrial of the case after the mandatory provisions of Order I rule 10 (4) of the CPC have been complied with.

Invoke the provision of section 4(2) of the ADA to revise and nullify the proceedings of the District Court of Magu dated 21st October, 2016 and those of the High Court in Criminal Sessions Case No. 163 of 2016, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. emit the case file in PI Case No. 38 of 2014 to the District Court of Magu to conduct fresh committal proceedings before another magistrate as soon as practicable, further order that, the appellant should remain in custody pending the holding of fresh committal proceedings.

It follows that, the alleged accident was not sufficiently established as the cause of the applicant's delay. As such, the applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause for the grant of extension of time. The application is dismissed with costs.

It is my considered view that the application before the Court lacks the qualities of a competent application. It follows that the same must fall through, and accordingly, the Court strike it out with no order as to costs. It is so ordered

It is our finding that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the above outlined doubts therefore should be resolved in favour of the appellant, thus the ground that the prosecution case was not proved to the required standard has merit and we allow it. Following this finding, we see no need to consider the appellant's defence as Mr. Isihaka had invited us to do. Consequently, the Court hereby proceed to allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence meted against the appellant. Eventually, we order the release of the appellant from prison unless he is otherwise lawfully held.

It is our firm view that none of the grounds and issues, as discussed above, tick the boxes of Rule 60 (1) (a) to (e) of the Rules, and case law. At most, the grounds assail the decision having been erroneously arrived at. They all propose re-hearing of the appeal. They are, therefore grounds of appeal rather than grounds of review. In the circumstances, and for the above given reasons, the Court find the application misconceived, the application is without merits and it is hereby dismissed.

It is partly allow the appeal, quash the conviction of murder and substitute it with the conviction of manslaughter, accordingly, set aside the sentence of death by hanging imposed by the trial court to the appellant, considering the circumstances pertaining to the killing of the deceased, and the period that the appellant has been in custody, impose a term of imprisonment of fifteen years from the date of the appellant's conviction, that is, 8th July, 2022.

It is settled that such an order will be at loggerhead with the justice of this case, instead, the court agree with Mr. Mwita again who invited us to set the appellant free and leave the matter at the DPP's good wisdom to decided whether to prosecute again or not, this course of action was taken by the Court in Joseph Ngadupa Akilimbaya (supra) and shall do the same but on condition that such decision by the DPP must be taken not later than 18 months from the date of delivery of this judgment, accordingly, order the release of the appellant forthwith unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

It was wrong to sentence the appellant to life imprisonment and in addition three strokes of a cane, thus quash the sentences meted on the appellant and allow the appeal to the term served. Consequently, the appellant should be released forthwith unless held for other lawful cause.

Just as the first appellate court decided, the Court has not amused by the appellant's story as far as the claim against the respondents is concerned., the Court has weighed the evidence on record and it is our sincere finding that, the appellant failed to prove his claim against the respondents on the balance of probabilities. For the foregoing analysis and reason, the Court dismiss this appeal with costs.

Law reform recommendation

Matter is marked settled

No merit in ground one and having so held, the court see no need discussing other grounds which were dependent on the determination of ground one. Consequently, dismiss the appeal for lack of merit. The respondent shall have her costs in this Court and the trial court.

No merit in the appellant's appeal, henceforth dismiss it with costs.

No merit in the preliminary objection and dismiss it with costs.

Notice of Appeal has to be amended

Nullify the judgment and proceedings of the High Court and remit the record thereof for redetermination of appeal before another judge, Since this is an old case, court direct that the rehearing of the appeal be done expeditiously.

Nullify the proceedings and judgment of the Tribunal and that of the High Court

Nullify the proceedings of the trial court, quash the judgment and set aside the decree, further make an order for an expedited retrial of the suit by another Judge

Objection overruled

Objection sustained

On account of what we have endeavoured to discuss, the Court find the appeal merited and it is allowed, quash and set aside the conviction and sentence and order the immediate release of the appellant unless if held for some other lawful cause.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Court allow the appeal, nullify the proceedings, quash the ruling and set aside the orders of the High Court, direct that, the High Court should continue to hear the preliminary objection in the light of the attack launched on the affidavit sworn in support of the application for extension of time. Needless to say, depending on the outcome of the preliminary objection, the High Court should hear and conclude the proceeding according to law. Since the mix up leading to the present appeal was partly caused by the present appellant, and there was neither fault nor stratagem on the part of the respondent, order for each party to bear their own costs.

On the way forward, taking into account the circumstances of this case, we are of the firm view that justice demands that the appellant be set free unless otherwise held for lawful purposes.

On the whole, the Court find the application merited and grant it. Consequently, the notice of appeal lodged on 26 October, 2021 is hereby struck out as prayed in the notice of motion. Considering the nature of the dispute giving rise to the application, the Court make no order as to costs. Order accordingly.

Petition dismissed

Petition partially succeed

Preliminary Objection overlewd with no costs

Preliminary objection by the first respondent is upheld, application is thus struck out with costs.

Preliminary objection is overruled with costs.

Preliminary objections are devoid of substance, they are accordingly overruled with costs

Proceedings nullified ito section 4(2) of the AJA

Proceedings of the subordinate court are nullified meanwhile the accused shall remain in custody pending the holding of fresh committal proceedings and his ultimate trial.

Proceedings of the subordinate court are nullified meanwhile, the accused shall remain in custody pending the holding of fresh committal proceedings and his ultimate trial.

Proposed order to remit the case file to the trial Magistrate or his successor in office to compose a proper judgement in compliance with section 312(2) of the CPA is, in the circumstances of this matter, superfluous, thus allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence of three (3) years in community service and the compensation of TZS 1,500,000/=.

Prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on he appellant, finally order the appellant's release from prison unless his continued incarceration is related to other lawful cause.

Quash his conviction and set aside the sentence immediate release from prison.

Quash the conviction and set aside the sentence imposed on the appellant and the appellant be set free unless he is being held for other lawful cause.

Quash the conviction and set aside the sentence of 30 years imprisonment on the appellant. We order the immediate release of the appellant from prison unless he is being held there for another lawful cause.

Quash the proceedings before the High Court as well as the judgment, and set aside the resultant orders

Quashed

Quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence awarded to the appellant, and order his immediate release from prison unless lawfully held.

Quashed the judgments and set aside the orders, we remit the record to the trial Tribunal for it to conduct an expedited retrial according to law.

Reference Dismissed

Reference is unmerited, it stands dismissed.

Reject the applicant's motion for change of panel or for the recusal of one of us because that is against the clear provisions of rule 66 (5) of the Rules

Remitted to High Court for determination on merits

Respective trial court's proceedings as a nullity., consequently, the court nullify the same from the date the respondent filed the amended written statement of defence and set aside the decree

Retrial

Revision dismissed

Revision granted

Second ground of appeal has merit allow it to that extent with costs.

Sentence of the accused shall start from 2nd November, 2023 because the irregularity was prompted by the trial court.

Set aside the sentence

Since the finding disposes of the appeal, the court see no compelling reasons to consider the remaining grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. In the event, and for the foregoing reasons, the court hereby dismiss the appeal in its entirety with costs.

Since the appeal before the lower court was determined on the basis of a single ground which, as we have amply demonstrated, was bereft of merit, this Court remit the matter to the said court with a direction that the appeal should be reheard and determined expeditiously by another Resident Magistrate with competent jurisdiction. Considering the fact that neither of the parties is to blame for the reasons leading to this appeal, we make no order as to costs.

Since the applicant bears the burden of proof, it is upon him to clear the doubts as regards the two stories told by the two affidavits, this he has not been able to do the affidavit which was served on the respondent contradicts the one on record and since this fact was raised in the affidavit in reply, it is not extraneous, the court hold that the application is incompetent for being supported by an untrue affidavit.

Since the determination of the 1st and 7th ground is sufficient to dispose the appeal, we shall not determine the remaining grounds of appeal. Consequently, the Court allow the appeal quash and set aside conviction and the sentence meted on the appellant and order the immediate release of the appellant unless if held for another lawful cause.

Stay execution of the decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Moshi in Land Case No. 10 of 2016 dated 08/06/2017 on condition that the applicant puts in the Court a Certificate of Title for such a plot as promised with at least half value of the disputed land immediately.

Strike out the appeal with costs for being time barred

Strike out the application with costs.

Strike out the notice of appeal lodged by the respondent

Suit dismissed without costs

Suit dismissed with costs

Suit granted

Summary Judgement entered in favour of the plaintiffs

Tawan

That said, the appeal stands allowed. Since the appeal emanates from a labour dispute in which costs are ordinarily not awardable, the Court order that each party bears own costs.

The Court agree with the learned Senior State Attorney that the appellant's notice of appeal was filed beyond the prescribed thirty (30) days. There is no evidence that the appellant sought and obtained extension of time to file the respective notice of appeal beyond the prescribed thirty days. Thus, since it is the notice of appeal which institutes an appeal, the purported appeal is not properly before the Court on ground of being incompetent, the Court accordingly strike it out.

The Court accordingly, allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence meted to the appellant, and order an immediate release from custody forthwith unless otherwise is held for other lawful cause.

The Court agree with the appellant's counsel, that all witnesses who gave evidence before the CMA, did so without taking oath, rendering the proceedings a nullity, the Court settled that the taking of an oath is such a solemn exercise that should not be inferred but must be reflected in the proceedings. Accordingly, nullify those proceedings from immediately before the first witness testified to the judgment, quash the judgment and set aside the orders arising therefrom and remit the record to the CMA for it to conduct a fresh hearing by properly recording the evidence according to law. That disposes of the appeal and the Court do not need to pronounce ourselves on the remaining 8 grounds of appeal.

The Court allow the appeal with costs, accordingly quash the High Court's decision and enter judgment for the appellant adjudging him the lawful owner of the property in dispute.

The Court allow the appeal, nullify the proceedings of the lower courts, quash the appellant's conviction and set aside the custodial sentence imposed on him. As stated above, there should be a retrial, if that is possible. Meanwhile, the appellant shall remain under remand custody awaiting retrial.

The Court allow the appeal, quash the appellant's conviction and set aside the sentence. He should be released from prison forthwith unless he is otherwise lawfully held.

The Court allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence of life imprisonment imposed against the appellant, further order that the appellant be released forthwith from custodial sentence unless otherwise he is held for any other lawful cause(s).

The Court conclude that the applicants have not demonstrated any good cause that would entitle them extension of time, in the result, this application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs for the first respondent only.

The Court declare the appeal time barred and accordingly strike it out with costs.

The Court finally find nothing to fault in the findings of the TRAT that section 16(1) (b) of the VAT Act cannot apply to credit input VAT to the appellant because the imported generators were not for the furtherance of business between TANESCO and the appellant in respect of generation of the additional 50MW. The appeal therefore fails on that account. the Court thus dismiss it with

The Court find it just that time is extended for the applicants to lodge the intended appeal, the intended appeal shall be lodged in this court within 30 days from the date of this Ruling.

The Court find merit in the appeal which we herein allow. Consequently, the appellant's conviction is quashed and the sentence meted out to him is set aside, accordingly order the immediate release of the appellant from prison if he is not otherwise retained for some other lawful cause.

The Court find no merit in the single ground for review raised by the applicant, the application is on that score not merited. Accordingly, the Court dismiss it in its entirety.

The Court find no merits in this application which is dismissed with no order for costs.

The Court find nothing to fault the two courts below because the prosecution case was proved to the required standard, in the end, Court find no substance in the entire appeal and it is hereby dismissed.

The Court find nothing useful to fault the trial court's decision, consequently, Court find no merit in the appeal, which hereby dismiss in its entirety.

The Court find that the applicant has presented sufficient grounds warranting the granting of the application. The applicant is ordered to lodge the intended appeal within sixty (60) days from the date of this order. Costs to follow events. It is so ordered.

The Court find that, the appeal has been brought without sufficient reasons. In the event, the same is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

The Court find the appeal devoid of merit and proceed to dismiss it in its entirety.

The Court find the appeal devoid of merit. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

The Court find the appeal is without merit, consequently, dismiss it in its entirety.

The Court find the appeal merited and it is allowed, direct immediate release of the appellant from custody unless lawfully held for some other reasons.

The Court find the application with merit and it is accordingly granted, the execution of the decree of the Court in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2022 is hereby stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended application for review on condition that, the applicant executes within 30 days from the date hereof, a commitment bond to the effect that the suit property shall remain in the same condition as they were at the date of issuance of the decree by the Court.

The Court find the entire appeal devoid of merits and accordingly dismiss it.

The Court find the instant appeal fatally defective and accordingly strike it out. Considering the concurrent submission of the counsel, the Court shall not make an order as to costs. Order accordingly.

The Court grant the application and give the applicant fourteen (14) days from the date this ruling is delivered, within which he should file an application for extension of time to lodge a notice by way of a second bite application in terms of rule 45A (1) (a) of the Rules, Costs should be in the cause.

The Court grant the application and order stay of execution of the decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam in Consolidated Civil Cases No. 142 of 2020 and 79 of 2023 dated 22nd May, 2024 on condition that the applicant deposit in the Court, within sixty (60) days from the date of delivery of this ruling, a bank guarantee for the decreed principal sum of US$ 6,424,943.26. The said guarantee shall remain in force until full hearing and determination of the intended appeal. In default, the order of stay shall lapse automatically. Costs incidental to this application shall follow the event in the intended appeal.

The Court grant the application and order the applicant to lodge his application for revision within sixty (60) days. It is so ordered.

The Court grant the order to stay the execution of the CMA award in Labour Dispute No. CMA/SGD/29/2018/06/2019 pending the hearing and final determination of Labour Review No. 25141 of 2024 pending before this court. This being a labour matter, the parties shall bear their own costs. Order accordingly.

The Court has carefully considered the prayer by the respondents that the applicant be condemned to pay costs for preferring a frivolous and vexatious application. In the end, we are of the decided view that it is in the interest of justice that we make no order as to costs.

The Court has no doubt that the mandatory life imprisonment imposed on the appellant was well-deserved, given the demonstrated fact that the complainant was seven years old when the appellant sexually molested him. As well, the final ground of appeal is unsuccessful, ultimately, the Court dismiss the appeal due to its lack of substance.

The Court hereby grant the same and further order the applicant to file the said notice within fourteen days from the date of this ruling.

The Court hereby nullify, and quash the proceedings in Civil Application No. 44 of 2020, set aside the order of dismissal and substitute thereof with an order striking out the application in terms of section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141. In the end, in the circumstances of the appeal before the Court, we make no order as to costs.

The Court invoke our revisional powers under section 4(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and revise the judgments and proceedings of both the District Court and the High Court. We, as a result, set aside the judgments of the two courts below, quash the proceedings thereof and restore the decision of the primary court. We do not make an order as to costs in the circumstances.

The Court minded to allow the appellants' appeal, quash their respective convictions and also set aside the sentences meted against each of them, the Court hereby order that they should be set at liberty if nothing lawful holds them in prison.

The Court nullify the proceedings of the trial court from the ruling of case to answer, the defence together with the trial court judgment; and the entire proceedings and judgement of the first appellate court, therefore, remit the trial court file in respect of Criminal case No. 87 of 2019 for continuation of the trial after making ruling of a case to answer or otherwise before another magistrate. Meanwhile, the appellant shall remain in custody awaiting continuation of hearing of the case.

The Court nullify the proceedings, the resultant decision and any orders subsequent thereto in Economic Application No. 01 of 2019. The appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions for that matter fails and it is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

The Court order stay of execution application, the application is granted upon the condition that the applicant shall present a bank's guarantee which is equivalent of TZS 75,600,000.00 within thirty days from the date of this ruling, the Court make no order for the costs, as the application arises from a labour dispute where ordinarily we do not award costs.

The Court order the case file to be remitted to the District Court, for the parties to be heard expeditiously, before Katemana, PRM or his successor in office, on the question of time limitation which was raised suo mottu. Each party to bear own costs as the irregularity was prompted by the District Court.

The Court quash the appellant's conviction on attempted armed robbery and set aside the sentence of thirty years imprisonment and substitute thereof with the conviction of attempted robbery contrary to section 287 of the Penal Code and sentence him to seven years imprisonment commencing from the date he was initially convicted and sentenced by the trial court. In the end, save for substitution of conviction and sentence, the Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court re-iterate that the execution of the CMA award upheld by the High Court in Consolidated Revision Application Nos. 254 and 264 of 2024 is hereby stayed pending final determination of the appeal. This order is conditional upon the applicant depositing a bank's guarantee for TZS Eighteen Million only (18,000,000. 00) as security for due performance of the decree, within one month from the date hereof.

The Court reverse the decision of the High Court by quashing the appellant's conviction and by setting aside his sentence of life imprisonment, further direct that the appellant be released from prison and be set to liberty, unless he continues to be held in custody for another lawful cause.

The Court satisfied beyond any shadow of doubts that the prosecution case was proved to the hilt, and that the appellant was properly convicted with the offence charged. Therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

The Court satisfied that the applicant has adduced sufficient cause to be granted the extension sought. Therefore, interest of justice demands that provision of rule 64 (2) of the Rules be invoked to allow the applicant to file supplementary record of appeal. Thus, vacate our previous order dated 18 August, 2022 and in terms of Rule 4 (2) (a) of the Rules, further extend the time to lodge supplementary record of appeal. The same to be filed within 30 days from the date of this ruling.

The Court satisfied that the applicant has met all the conditions. I thus hereby grant the application and order that execution of the decree in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 820 of 2016 be stayed pending a hearing of the intended appeal. This order is, however, subject to the applicant's deposit of the original Certificates of Titles with numbers 124738, 97819, 97764, 97728 and 123752 in the name of Simba Motors Ltd in the alternative the applicant to deposit with the Registrar of the Court an irrevocable bank guarantee in the sum of USD 300,000. The intended bank guarantee should be amenable to renewal to cover the whole period until the pending appeal is determined and it should be deposited within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.

The Court satisfied that the case against the appellant was proved to the hilt. Eventually, find this appeal meritless and dismiss it in its entirety.

The Court satisfied that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court find merit in this appeal and allow it, the appellant should be set free immediately if not held for some other lawful cause.

The Court see no merit in the application before us which accordingly dismiss with costs.

The Court see no merit in the application, it is thus dismissed.

The Court settled in mind that the prosecution case against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus find the appeal without merit and accordingly dismiss it.

The Court therefore find the illegality pleaded not to constitute a reasonable cause for extension of time, in conclusion therefore, having the two grounds for extension of time not met by the applicant sufficiently to move this court to exercise its discretionary powers, the Court find this application to be without merits and is hereby dismissed.

The Court therefore quash the conviction of the first appellant and set aside the sentence meted by the trial court and order immediate release from custody unless he is held therein for other lawful cause, the conviction, sentence and orders issued against the second appellant are upheld.

The Court therefore, satisfied that the evidence adduced did not connect the appellants with the offence charged. Hence, find the sole ground of appeal of the 1st appellant and the 1st ground of 2nd appellant have merit. Consequently allow the appeal based on these two grounds. Accordingly, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence and order the release of the appellants from ' prison immediately unless they are being held for other lawful cause.

The Court undoubtedly find the trial was vitiated, hold that, the trial conducted without framing issues was a nullity and hereby quashed. So is the judgment and decree that followed. Going forward, the Court order that the record be remitted to the High Court for a retrial before another Judge. For the reasons given, the Court allow the appeal but with no order for costs.

The Court view that the application lacks the qualities of a competent application. It follows that the same must fall through, and accordingly, strike it out with no order as to costs. It is so ordered.

The Court allow the appeal, quash conviction and set aside the appellant's death sentence, order his immediate release from prison unless he is held for some other lawful cause.

The Court content that the prosecution side proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant's appeal is lacking in merit and is dismissed in its entirety.

The Court decline to entertain the application in terms of rule 60(1) of the Rules, therefore, adjourned the hearing of the application for determination by the Court.

The Court do not find cogent reasons to disturb the concurrent findings of the two courts as such uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant and proceed to dismiss the appeal in its entirety.

The Court find that this matter discloses no good cause for the Court to exercise its powers to enlarge time, accordingly, the Court dismiss this application in its entirety with costs.

The Court find merit in the preliminary objection, accordingly, sustain it in the light of the foregoing, this application for stay of execution suffers incompetence and I hereby strike it with costs.

The Court find merit in the sole ground of appeal and proceed to allow the appeal, consequently nullify the proceedings before the CMA and the decision thereon. Furthermore, quash the judgment of the High Court.

The Court find that the applicant has failed to meet the stipulated conditions to warrant the grant of stay of execution prayed, in fine the application is dismissed with costs.

The Court find the applicant has exhibited sufficient cause, and accordingly, grant the extension of time sought, further order the applicant to lodge the intended appeal within sixty (60) days from the date of this ruling.Being a labour matter, no costs is awarded. It is so ordered.

The Court find the application to be merited and grant it with costs.

The Court has to intervene under section 4(2) of the AJA and declare that all proceedings starting from Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2017 were a nullity. The decisions and orders arising therefrom are therefore quashed and set aside, the Court make no order as to costs.

The Court has the view that, it has sufficient to dispose of this application and find no need to consider the remaining ground since it falls within the ambit of what has been deliberated and determined in those two grounds. In the end, the Court dismiss the application for lack of merit and make no orders as to costs.

The Court hereby grant the application pending determination of appeal, the stay is made upon the condition that the applicant shall deposit security by way of a bank's guarantee to the tune of TZS 150,000,000.00 within sixty days of this ruling.

The Court invoke revisional jurisdiction under section 4 (2) of the AJA and nullify the entire proceedings before the High Court, quash the judgment and set aside the orders thereof. Considering the circumstances of this appeal, and make no order as to costs.

The Court is hereby dismiss the appeal in its entirety and sustain the conviction and sentence meted out against the appellant by the trial court.

The Court nullify the judgment of DLHT of Chato in Land Application No. 10 of 2017 and set aside the decree, the nullification also applies to the proceedings of the High Court in Land Appeal No. 38 of 2019 as they emanated from nullity proceedings. In the final analysis, the court accordingly order that the matter be placed before the DLHT for conducting the visit to the locus in quo as earlier on ordered in accordance with the law and later determine the dispute between the parties as soon as practicable.

The Court stated that the ability of a witness to name a suspect at the earliest opportunity is an all-important assurance of his reliability. Therefore, dismiss grounds number 1, H( 3 and 6 for lack of merits. The Court otherwise have no reason to doubt that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, dismiss this appeal in its entirety.

The Court sustain the two points of abjection and hereby strike out the appeal with costs.

The Court, in view thereof, find nothing unusual or erroneous in the learned Judge's stance of the matter. It was in keeping with the duty that the court had in the matter. In consequence, find this ground of appeal hollow and dismiss it. Overall, the Court find nothing meritorious in this appeal. Accordingly, dismiss it with no order as to costs.

The appeal is allowed with costs and all the prayers in the plaint are granted to the appellant.

The appeal is hereby allowed and the decision of the trial court is upheld accordingly. For the purpose of emphasis, the parties are at liberty to refer the land dispute to the competent civil forum for conclusive determination on the question of ownership. From then onwards, encroachment onto the land of the other could be a trespass and a criminal charge can be brought against the offending party. It is accordingly ordered. Right of appeal explained.

The application has merit and is hereby granted. Consequently, the execution of the decree of the High Court dated 30th November, 2022 in Land Case No. 242 of 2021 is hereby stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal on condition that the applicant deposits in the Court within thirty days of the delivery of this ruling a bank guarantee for the sum of TZS. 438,000,000.00. The said guarantee shall remain in force until full hearing and determination of the intended appeal by this Court. In the event of default, the order of stay shall lapse automatically, the Court do not in the circumstances make any order as to costs.

The application has merit and is hereby granted. Consequently, the execution of the decree of the High Court dated 30th November, 2022 in Revision No. 258 of 2022 is hereby stayed pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal. However, the stay is subject to the applicant depositing in the Court within thirty days of the delivery of this ruling a bank guarantee for the sum of TZS 146,302,547.20. The said guarantee shall remain in force until full hearing and determination of the intended appeal by this Court. In the event of default, the order of stay shall lapse automatically. In the circumstances costs shall follow events.

The application has met the threshold. Good cause having been demonstrated under rule 11(2) (b) (d) of the Rules. Consequently, it is hereby granted. For avoidance of doubts therefore, execution of the decree of the High Court of Arusha in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2022 (Phillip, J.) is stayed. The order is upon a condition that the applicant provide a bank's grantee for TZS 73,489,606.86 in favour of the respondent within sixty days from the date hereof. In default, the order shall lapse automatically. Each party shall bear their costs.

The application is found to be meritorious, the decree of the High Court made in Miscellaneous Land Appeal No.103 of 2021, original Application No. 118 of 2016, is stayed pending hearing and final determination of the appeal pending before the Court as a condition thereto, the applicant is ordered to furnish security in the form of bank guarantee at the tune of TZS. 30,000,000.00 within 60 days from today, the court make no order as to costs.

The application is hereby struck out for being incompetent with no order for costs. It is so ordered.

The commitment bond conforming to the above conditions shall be executed and deposited with the Registrar, other parties to this application shall be entitled to the copy of the bond, the bond shall be deposited with the Registrar within fourteen days from the date of delivery of this ruling to the parties.

The court grant the application and order the intended application for revision to be lodged within 60 days of the delivery of this ruling. Costs to be on the cause.

The court remit the file to the CMA and direct that the preliminary objection which was raised on 1st July, 2019 in which parties' submissions were heard be determined expeditiously before proceeding with the testimony of DW1. In the end, having regard to the circumstances of the appeal, the court make no order as to costs.

The court satisfied that the applicant has cumulatively complied with all the statutory conditions warranting the grant of the stay order as conceded by the respondent, accordingly, grant the application and order stay of execution of the decree of the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division at Dar es Salaam in Labour Revision No. 220 of 2022 dated 31st May, 2024 on condition that the applicant should deposit in the Court, within forty-five (45) days from the date of this ruling, a bank guarantee for the decreed sum of TZS 1,650,351,661.54, the said guarantee shall remain in force until full hearing and determination of the intended appeal. In default, the order of stay shall lapse automatically.

The court set aside the sentence of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment and substitute thereof with fifteen (15) years from the date the appellant was convicted and ultimately sentenced.

The court accordingly, invoke revisonal powers under section 4(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and nullify the proceedings thereof, further direct that the record be remitted to the trial court for trial before another judge after the Rungwe District Council had been joined as a party.

The court allow this appeal against conviction for rape and sentence which are hereby quashed and set aside accordingly, the net effect is that the appellant shall be released forthwith from custody unless he is held lawfully for another cause.

The court found no sufficient cause to extend the time to the applicant to lodge the notice of appeal. the court accordingly dismiss the application with costs.

The court has quashed and set aside the sentence of seven (7) years' imprisonment on the first, second and third counts and substitute it with the sentence of five (5) years' imprisonment, the substituted sentence, in our view, is appropriate in the case at hand. However, uphold the sentence of the trial court of two years imprisonment on the fourth and fifth counts respectively and also, uphold the order that all sentences should run concurrently. The substituted sentence should run from the date of the appellant's conviction.

The court nullify the entire proceedings, quash the judgment and set aside the resultant decree of the trial court dated 7th May, 2021 but issued on 2nd June, 2021.

The court order stay of execution of the order of the High Court of Tanzania in Misc. Civil Application No. 99 of 2022 dated the 30th August, 2023 as per Morris J. pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal on condition that the applicant executes a commitment bond within thirty (30) days of the delivery of this ruling to the effect that all properties falling within the estate of the deceased that are in his custody and/or possession shall remain in the same condition as they were on the date of issuance of this order until the intended appeal is heard and determined.

The entire Preliminary Objections have no legal basis and, are hereby overruled.

The entire appeal is hereby dismissed.

The foregoing said, the Court has of the considered view that the charge levelled against the appellants was proved to the hilt, the Court find no merit in this appeal and dismiss it entirely.

The matter before this court is, by the consent of both parties, marked settled as per the terms and conditions contained in the deed of settlement

The matter before this court is, by the consent of both parties, marked settled as per the terms and conditions contained in the deed of settlement.

The matter to be remitted to the trial court for a trial to be conducted as expeditiously as possible

The prayer for extension of time is granted to allow the applicant to lodge the contemplated appeal to the Court

The proceedings and the judgment of the High Court in Economic Case No. 3 of 2021 are nullified, the conviction and sentences meted to the appellants are vacated and set aside and direct the case to be heard afresh by another Judge of competent jurisdiction after receiving the consent from the DPP on the offence charged. The appeal is allowed to the extent.

The remedy to an incompetent application like this one at hand is to strike it out, correctly as the learned State Attorney submitted. the Court hereby strike out this application with costs.

The review proceedings are hereby nullified, the decision of the review and the subsequent orders are set aside remit the record to the High Court for fresh hearing and determination of the application for review. For avoidance of doubts, the said application shall be heard and determined by a Successor Judge.

The sentence of thirty years imprisonment is quashed and substituted with that of fifteen years' imprisonment, appeal partly allowed.

The suit before the Court is incompetent for want of jurisdiction. Consequently, the suit is hereby struck out with costs.

The suit is hereby struck out with costs awarded to the defendants.

The totality from the forgoing sums up to the conclusion that, the appeal lacks merit, consequently, the court dismiss it with costs.

The totality of the foregoing discussion leads us to the conclusion that the prosecution case was marred with doubts which need to be resolved in favour of the appellant. In the circumstances, the Court has constrained to allow the appeal, quash the appellant's conviction and set aside the sentence meted out against the appellant. Ultimately, order or the release of the appellant forthwith unless held for some other lawful cause(s)

The upshot of it is that, the applicant has advanced good cause for the grant of an order of stay. For avoidance of doubt, therefore, execution of the decree dated 29th May, 2023 of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha in Land Case NO. 03 of 2020, is hereby stayed. Being guided by our proposition in Mantrac Tanzania Ltd v. Raymond Costa, Civil Application No. 11 of 2010, the order is conditional upon the applicant depositing in court, a bank's guarantee for TZS 21,059,360,581.00, in favor of the respondent within sixty working days from the date hereof. Each party shall bear their costs.

There was sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant had sexual intercourse with PW1 without her consent. The case against the appellant was thus, proved to the hilt. In the event, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

Therefore, in terms of section 4 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act [CAP 141 R.E 2019], the Court invoke our revisional jurisdiction and nullify the trial court judgment and summing up notes, quash and set aside the conviction and sentence meted on the appellant. It is further directed that, the case file be returned to the High Court for it to conduct a proper summing up to the assessors in compliance with section 298 (1) of the CPA and thereafter compose a fresh judgment and if need arises, give reasons for disagreement with the view of majority assessors.

Therefore, the Court agree with the parties that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of rape against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, allow the appeal, quash conviction and set aside the appellant's sentence, order immediate release of the appellant from prison unless lawfully held for other causes.

This appeal has merit and it is allowed. Consequently, the Court quash the ruling and drawn order of the High Court. Since the hearing was based on written submissions whose order was made upon the concurrent prayer of the parties, and direct that the record be remitted to the High Court for composition of a fresh decision basing on the respective written submissions by a different judge. It has to be as expeditiously as possible. Costs to follow the event.

This appeal has merit, and the Court will allow it accordingly. The Judgment and the Decree of the High Court Labour Division in Labour Revision No. 08 of 2021 is quashed and set aside, the Court restore the Award of the CMA. Each side shall bear its costs.

This appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

This application is allowed. For that matter, time to deposit bank guarantee is extended for a period of forty-five (45) days from the issuance of this decision. Cost of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

This issue alone is sufficient to dispose the application which is accordingly struck out with costs.

Trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application to investigate the ownership of the motor vehicle, thus allow the appeal, quash the ruling of the trial court and the resultant judgment of the High Court on an appeal and set aside all orders made thereto, make a direction that, the original record be remitted to the trial court for hearing and determination on merit of Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1 of 2021 by another magistrate of competent jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the Court allow the appeal to the extent that has been designated. Consequently, we render judgment in favour of the appellant in the amount of US$ 132,639.30. The appellant's remaining claim stands dismissed. Due to the circumstances of this case, the Court order each party to bear its own costs.

Ultimately, the Court order that the file in Land Case No. 47 of 2016 be remitted to the High Court for an expeditious fresh trial in accordance with the law before another judge. In the end, considering the circumstances of the appeal, the Court make no order as to costs.

Ultimately, the Court satisfied that the appellant was duly convicted of the offence laid under section 154 (1) (a) of the Penal Code ("the Code"), due to the impeccable evidence that he caused his manhood to penetrate the anus of the two-year-old girl. The Court also persuaded that the mandatory life imprisonment was imposed in accordance with the dictates of section 154 (2) of the Code, as the offence was committed on a child under the age of eighteen, in the end, the Court dismiss the appeal for want of substance.

Unfortunately, the applicants did not seek the leave of the Court before they filed those affidavits. Therefore, the omission to seek the leave to file supplementary affidavits renders the affidavits defective. Since the notice of motion is supported by defective affidavits, the application becomes incompetent and it is hereby struck out with costs.

When all the foregoing is said, the Court satisfied that the applicant has not shown good cause to warrant my discretion and grant of extension of time sought. The application is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

Whereby contributory negligence is involved.

With the above discussion, there is no need of getting to issues of procurement of the bank guarantee or an insurance bond, because, in order to consider security for due performance of the decree, substantial loss must be demonstrated first. That said and done, this application has no merit. It is hereby dismissed with costs.

With the few pointed out defects we entirely agree that retrial will be prejudicial to the appellants. In the end, the Court proceed to allow the appeal, nullify the proceedings, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. All three appellants be released from prison unless being held for some other lawful reasons.

With the foregoing, the appeal partially succeeds, the Court quash the conviction and set aside the sentence in relation to the offence of impregnating a school girl. In relation to the offence of rape, the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismiss it in its entirely.

With these infractions the Court agree with all learned counsel that both cautioned statements were wrongly admitted and hence deserves to be expunged as we hereby do. That said and done, if the two cautioned statements are expunged, there remains no other evidence to sustain the conviction. Consequently, the Court allow the appeal, quash the conviction entered against the appellants and set aside the sentences meted out against them, further order for their immediate release from custody unless otherwise are held for other lawful cause(s).

immediate release of the appellants from prison unless they are lawfully held.

invoke revisional powers under rule 4(2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 and revise the judgments and proceedings of both the District Court and the High Court, set aside the judgments of the two courts below, quash the proceedings thereof and restore the decision of the primary court

ln view of the foregoing, we are constrained to sustain the points of preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondents, and find the appeal Is Incompetent. All said, we accordingly strike out the purported appeal with no order as to costs.

n pursuance of section 4 (2) of the AJA, quash all proceedings in Matrimonial Cross -Appeal No. 30 of 2020, set aside the resultant judgment and decree, on the other hand, quash all the proceedings in Matrimonial Appeal No. 24 of 2020 from 18 November, 2020 and set aside judgment and the resultant decree, going forward, direct that the record in from which Matrimonial Appeal No. 24 of 2020 emanated shall be expeditiously remitted to the High Court with a view to a hearing of that appeal afresh upon the respondent re- filing her cross-appeal in that file not later than 30 days from the date of this ruling.

strike it out each party shall bear his own costs.

the applicants have failed to establish any element of illegality in the intended application which would justify an extension of time. In the final result and for the foregoing reasons, the application devoid of any merit and it is hereby dismissed
Alphabet

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

Sort by:

1,024 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
November 2025
Deogratius Joseph Sambo (As the Administrator of the Estate of the late Lance Augustine Sambo) vs Judith James Sambo (Civil Appeal No. 20541 of 2021) [2025] TZHC 6849 (7 November 2025)	7 November 2025
M.S.B vs B.K.A (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22160 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6778 (7 November 2025)	7 November 2025
October 2025
Shamsa Salim Hamdun & Another vs Zuwena Salim Hamdun (As the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Ashura Swedi Mkusa) (Civil Appeal No. 23129 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6613 (28 October 2025)	28 October 2025
Stumai Mrisho Mavumila (Administratrix of the Estates of the Late Mrisho Hamis Mavumila) vs Samson Lucian Mkude (Administrator of the Estates of the Late Ajuta Anacret William) (Civil Appeal No. 21767 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6660 (24 October 2025)	24 October 2025
Zuwena Salum Seif (as an Administratrix of the estate of the late Mwinyijuma Ridhiki Makungwe) vs. Mwasiti Mwinjuma Seif) (Civil Application No. 21766 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6586 (24 October 2025)	24 October 2025
E.Z.M vs. M.W.C (P.C Civil Appeal No. 15729 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6584 (22 October 2025)	22 October 2025
G. A. N vs E. C (PC Civil Appeal No. 16716 OF 2025) [2025] TZHC 6658 (22 October 2025)	22 October 2025
Shadya Said Abdulrahman vs Ally Khamis Ally (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 25483 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6468 (21 October 2025) Denial of notice and right to be heard justified setting aside dismissal and restoring the applicant's proceedings. Restoration of proceedings – Setting aside dismissal for want of prosecution – Right to be heard – Failure of opposing counsel to notify applicant of hearing by written submissions – Order IX r.3; Sections 78(e) and 105 CPC.	21 October 2025
Abednego Saulo Nshekela vs Hamisa Mohamed Msabu (Civil Appeal No. 22406 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6478 (20 October 2025) Whether four plots registered in a third party's name constituted jointly acquired matrimonial property subject to division. Matrimonial property — burden of proof for joint acquisition (Evidence Act s.110) — proof by documentary evidence; Ownership registered in a third party’s name — courts should not determine third-party title in matrimonial division; Re-evaluation of facts on first appeal; Inconsistency in pleadings undermining claimant's case.	20 October 2025
Ali Said Ali vs Said Ali Juma (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22521 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6359 (20 October 2025) Resealing of Zanzibar letters of administration granted effect in Tanzania Mainland after compliance with PAEA and Probate Rules. Probate — Resealing of foreign (Zanzibar) grant under PAEA s.95 and Probate Rules — compliance with notice (Rule 79) and inventory requirements — no caveat/uncontested application — endorsement under Rule 103.	20 October 2025
J. K vs W. F (Civil Appeal No. 23704 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6474 (20 October 2025)	20 October 2025
S.M.S VS I.H.A (Civil Appeal No. 17995 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6751 (20 October 2025)	20 October 2025
Millen Daniel Matari vs Frank Moshy & Another (Misc. Civil Application No. 17560 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6477 (17 October 2025)	17 October 2025
In the Matter of the Estate of the Late Rogers Mugisha Rwiguza And In the Matter of Application for Grant of Letters of Administration of the Deceased Estate by Mukiza Rowland Richard and Zaina Kidunda (Probate and Administration Cause No. 22041 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6572 (16 October 2025)	16 October 2025
Alexandrina Emanuel Gunda vs Administrator General (PC. Civil Appeal No. 20538 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6480 (15 October 2025) Revocation application dismissed as time‑barred under the Administrator General Act's mandatory six‑month limitation. * Probate law – revocation of Administrator‑General's letters of administration – six‑month limitation under section 18 mandatory and substantive. * Limitation law – statutory limitation periods promote finality; not mere procedural technicalities. * Probate and Administration Act – court's discretion under section 33 to appoint suitable administrator, but discretion constrained by statutory limits. * Procedural fairness versus express statutory time limits – inability to extend or ignore statutory deadline.	15 October 2025
Deogratius Michael Pisa vs Martin Michael Pisa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 17484 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6358 (15 October 2025) Delay and estoppel bar revocation of administrators’ grant; section 107(5) permits inspection and objection, not prior consultation. Probate law – Revocation of letters of administration (s.49 PAEA) – False presentation of material facts – Requirements for petition (s.56 PAEA; Rule 71(1)) – Inventory and accounts (s.107(1) and (5) PAEA) – Consultation vs inspection/objection – Delay and estoppel as bar to relief – Proper forum to contest included property or distribution.	15 October 2025
D. A.M vs M. R. M (PC Civil Appeal No. 16560 OF 2025) [2025] TZHC 6481 (13 October 2025)	13 October 2025
D.B.K vs F.M (Civil Appeal No. 17204 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6356 (13 October 2025) Non-monetary contributions warrant reconsideration of matrimonial property shares and increased child maintenance. Family law – Matrimonial property – Section 114(1) and (2)(b) of the Marriage Act – non-monetary contribution (supervision, domestic work) counts in division; inclusion of assets acquired during marriage (including vehicle) – maintenance – adequacy of award and consideration of payer’s pension and rental income.	13 October 2025
Samwel Lawrence Saguti vs Margaret Mwanyemi Semu (Civil Revision No. 13970) [2025] TZHC 6446 (13 October 2025)	13 October 2025
J.K. vs J.J.K. (PC Civil Appeal No. 17561 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6282 (9 October 2025)	9 October 2025
Mr. G. C. M and Another vs Estate of the Late C. D. M (Probate and Administration Cause No. 18768 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6806 (9 October 2025) Court granted probate after finding statutory probate rules complied with, appointing joint executors with creditor notice and Mirathi account orders. * Probate law – Grant of probate – compliance with PAEA s.55, s.56 and s.57 and Probate Rules 33, 63, 73 and 76 – production of Will and death certificate – publication and caveat lapse. * Executors – appointment of joint executors named in Will – duties include establishing Trust Fund, publishing 60-day creditors' notice. * Estate funds – requirement to open special Mirathi account under Rule 105A.	9 October 2025
Paulina Madulu Mpogolo vs Felister Joshua Mpogolo and Another (PC Civil Appeal No. 14820 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6278 (9 October 2025) Misidentification of parties' legal capacity in probate proceedings rendered the appeal and related decisions defective and required quashing and remittal. * Probate law – capacity of parties – parties must be correctly cited in their legal capacity (personal legal representatives) in probate proceedings. * Civil procedure – competence of appeal – misidentification of parties' legal status can render an appeal and subsequent appellate proceedings incompetent. * Remedy – quashing and setting aside defective proceedings and remitting the matter for rehearing before another magistrate; expedite probate matters. * Jurisdiction – appellate court’s jurisdiction affected by defects in the trial record concerning parties’ capacities.	9 October 2025
L.M.A vs M.M.K (PC Civil Appeal No 15731 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6281 (8 October 2025) Domestic and business contributions justified revising a 50/50 property split to 55/45 in favour of the appellant. Matrimonial property – division of assets – s.114(2)(b) Law of Marriage Act – contributions in money, property or work – domestic (wifely) duties as indirect contribution – participation in business as direct contribution – weighing monetary against non-monetary contributions – appellate review.	8 October 2025
F.A.L.S vs H.P.S.S (Civil Appeal No. 21080 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6064 (2 October 2025) Parties settled matrimonial property dispute by consent judgment allocating ownership and making the settlement enforceable. Matrimonial property — Consent judgment — Deed of settlement recorded by court — Allocation of ownership and delivery of title deeds — Appeals marked settled and settlement enforceable.	2 October 2025
September 2025
Diamond Motors Limited and Another vs Rahma Bomani and Another (Application No. 7717/2025) [2025] TZHC 6080 (30 September 2025) Revocation refused where alleged creditor claims were disputed and the deceased's liability remains unadjudicated. * Probate law – Revocation of grant under s.49(1)(e) PAEA – executor’s duty to exhibit a full and true inventory and account (s.107, s.108). * Limitation – Law of Limitation Act para 21 does not apply to revocation proceedings prior to closure of the probate file. * Civil procedure/substantive law – Probate court cannot conclusively determine disputed substantive liabilities; such claims require suit in a competent court. * Remedy – Alleged creditor must obtain declaratory or monetary judgment against the alleged principal debtor/estate before probate inclusion.	30 September 2025
Fatuma Salehe Alwty vs Amne Ahmed Mohsen (Misc. Civil Application No. 22607 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6475 (30 September 2025)	30 September 2025
Richard Reuben Lubanga vs Moza Gilbert Mushi and Others (Misc. Civil Application No. 19974 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6767 (30 September 2025) Application dismissed as abuse of process and incompetent due to prior withdrawals without leave and improper joinder of parties. Civil procedure – Abuse of court process: withdrawal without leave to refile bars subsequent refiling; Competence of proceedings – joinder of parties: cannot add parties not in original decision without leave; Probate jurisdiction – impeachment of death certificate not determined where preliminary objections dispose matter.	30 September 2025
S.S.N vs S.B.H (Civil Appeal No. 13389 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6105 (30 September 2025) Registered land not shown to be transferred to the parties is not matrimonial property; separation defeats maintenance entitlement. Family law — Matrimonial property — Registered land — Ownership of registered land must be proved by documentary evidence — Alleged gift of registered plot requires proof — Assets acquired before marriage or after separation not matrimonial — Maintenance ceases where spouses live separately.	30 September 2025
J. B. K vs E. J. K (Civil Appeal No. 16417 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6473 (24 September 2025)	24 September 2025
Juma Hassan Mzee vs Khadija Hassan Mzee (Pc. Civil Appeal No. 12657 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6236 (19 September 2025)	19 September 2025
Mary Kamera vs Silas Achie Limo (As the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Charles William Masanyika) (Civil Appeal No. 15509 of 2024) [2025] TZHC 6472 (19 September 2025)	19 September 2025
Florence Honest Chaki vs William Honest Chaki (Pc. Civil Appeal No. 16254 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 6237 (15 September 2025)	15 September 2025
Bertha Venance Kanuti vs Anna Mathias Mindu (Civil Appeal No. 14973 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5594 (12 September 2025) Failure to tender or upload mandatory probate documents, including affidavit of death, renders a petition for administration fatally defective. * Probate law – Proof of death – Rule 63(3) permits an affidavit in lieu of a death certificate where the certificate is unavailable. * Evidence – Documents must be produced, tendered and admitted; an un-tendered document cannot be relied upon. * Probate procedure – Rule 39 mandatory supporting documents for a petition for letters of administration; failure to comply renders the petition fatally defective and proceedings vitiated.	12 September 2025
Bertha Venance Kanuti vs Anna Mathias Mindu (Civil Appeal No. 14973 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5724 (12 September 2025) Failure to tender mandatory probate documents (including affidavit in lieu) renders a petition incompetent and is struck out. Probate law – Proof of death – Rule 63(3) affidavit in lieu of death certificate – Requirement to tender and admit documentary evidence – Rule 39 mandatory supporting documents – e-CMS filing insufficiency – Competence of petition – Striking out defective probate proceedings.	12 September 2025
Nyika Hassan Ramadhani vs Khadija Fikiriniwaziri (Rufaa Namba 9933 ya Mwaka 2025) [2025] TZHC 5647 (12 Septemba 2025) Appeal allowed: failure to hear a lodged preliminary objection violated right to be heard, vitiating subsequent proceedings. * Civil procedure – preliminary objection – requirement to determine a preliminary objection before proceeding to merits – failure to do so vitiates proceedings. * Constitutional law – right to be heard (Article 13(6)(a)) – procedural breach that goes to root of case. * Court record – sanctity and presumption that record reflects what transpired; absence of record of ruling fatal to respondent's assertion. * Revision vs appeal – revisional jurisdiction available where errors on face of record, but unaddressed preliminary objection dispositive.	12 September 2025
Naomi Christopher Shayo (next friend of Danica Jimmy Mkenda, minor) v. Manfred Clement Mbuya (as administrator of the estate of late Jimmy John Mkenda) & Another (Misc. Civil Application No. 19972 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5673 (11 September 2025)	11 September 2025
Hamza Said Byarushengo vs Naima Abdunur Athuman (Misc. Civil Application No. 18310 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5562 (10 September 2025) Extension of time to appeal granted where applicant demonstrated diligence and fully accounted for a short delay after appeal was struck out. Civil procedure – Extension of time – Sufficient cause – Diligence in prosecuting appeal – Delay not inordinate – Absence of opposition.	10 September 2025
J.R.U vs H.J.M (Civil Appeal No. 1464 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5621 (9 September 2025) Applicant’s unaccounted delay and insufficient reasons justified refusal to extend time to set aside dismissal. Extension of time – discretion to grant – requirement to show sufficient cause and account for each day of delay – dismissal for want of prosecution – abuse of court process – following up proceedings before Qadhi’s Court not sufficient.	9 September 2025
Anne Emmanuel Mazalla vs Franklin Emmanuel Mazalla (Probate and Administration Cause No. 18649 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5490 (4 September 2025) A probate petition was struck out due to lack of jurisdiction arising from misrepresentation of the deceased's domicile. Probate – determination of domicile – jurisdiction – misrepresentation of residence in probate petitions – effect on jurisdiction – suitability to be appointed as administrator.	4 September 2025
Dipti Bwagwanji Chohan vs Administrator General and Another (Misc. Civil Application No. 15445 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5635 (3 September 2025)	3 September 2025
Fatuma Juma Rajabu vs Iddi Mohamedi Juma (Misc. Civil Application No. 18599 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5430 (1 September 2025) Technical delay from withdrawal of an earlier appeal justified extension of time to appeal in a probate matter. Extension of time – Application for leave to appeal out of time – Technical delay due to withdrawal of earlier appeal – Sufficient cause for extension – Threshold for material illegality as ground for extension of time – Probate matters – Judicial discretion in extension applications.	1 September 2025
August 2025
Aron Brasius Mapunda vs Turufena Andrea Gerutu (Misc. Civil Application No. 14100 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5431 (29 August 2025) Alleged illegality in property division was not apparent on the record and did not justify extension of time to appeal. Civil Procedure – Extension of time – Sufficient cause – Allegation of illegality – Illegality apparent on the face of the record – Matrimonial property division – Judicial discretion under section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act.	29 August 2025
Grace Abbas Kimaro vs Donald D. Mwaibale and Another (Probate and Administration Cause No. 1 of 2022) [2025] TZHC 5649 (29 August 2025) Probate court administers assets in deceased’s sole name; Administrator must correct rounding errors and account for funeral liabilities. * Probate law – Jurisdiction of probate court to administer assets registered in deceased’s sole name – distinction from matrimonial property proceedings. * Succession – application of Indian Succession Act proportions (1/3 and 2/3) and obligation to compute shares accurately. * Probate procedure – Probate Rules require disclosure of funeral liabilities and all payments; Administrator’s duty to account fully. * Accounting – rounding discrepancies and small unaccounted fractions are material if they prejudice heirs and must be corrected.	29 August 2025
Lukolo Juma Bimba vs Fatma Said Juma (Civil Appeal No. 11117 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5420 (29 August 2025) Child maintenance and education contributions must be based on a proper assessment of each parent's financial means. Child law – Maintenance order – Assessment of means – Proper inquiry and evidence required – Shared parental responsibility.	29 August 2025
Michael Wilson Mwasongwe &4 others v. Kaisi Emani Kalambo(as legal representative of NSA Kaisi) &3 Others (Misc. Civil Application No. 12877 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5672 (29 August 2025)	29 August 2025
Ng'Walu Mnyela Sayi and Others vs Manyangu Mnyela Sayi and Another (PC Civil Appeal No. 910 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5633 (29 August 2025) High Court: district court wrongly dismissed probate appeal as a revocation application; matter remitted for fresh hearing. Probate and succession law – closure of probate proceedings – effect on rights of appeal; Procedural law – parties bound by pleadings – courts cannot decide extraneous matters; Appellate procedure – characterisation of appeal vs application for revocation; Jurisdiction – proceedings conducted after superior court directive and their potential nullity; Remedy – remit for rehearing by another magistrate.	29 August 2025
Sarapia Justine vs Simon Emmanuel Rusigwa (Misc. Civil Application No. 15058 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5416 (29 August 2025) The court dismissed an application for extension of time to appeal a child custody order for lack of sufficient cause. Civil procedure – Application for extension of time – Custody disputes – Good cause for delay – Proof of illness – Illegality as a ground for extension – Obligation to account for each day of delay.	29 August 2025
K.L.S vs A.M.A (Civil Appeal No. 7185 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5669 (26 August 2025)	26 August 2025
Zebedayo Geofrey Iteba vs Nelly Geofrey Iteba (Civil Application No. 13452 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5622 (26 August 2025) Administrator's admitted inability and failure to distribute estate justified revocation and appointment of a successor under section 49. Probate and Administration Act – revocation of grants – grant rendered 'useless and inoperative' (s49(1)(d)) – removal and succession of administrator (s49(2)) – duty to account and report on assets (s49(3)) – formalities for issuance of letters (Probate Rules).	26 August 2025
R- K vs K (Civil Appeal No. 16165 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 5166 (25 August 2025) An appeal against a magistrate's recusal was held interlocutory and incompetent; the file was remitted for trial. * Civil procedure – interlocutory orders – test is whether the order finally disposes of parties' rights; recusal orders that do not determine substantive relief are interlocutory. * Matrimonial proceedings – applicability of Civil Procedure Code – section 80(3) Law of Marriage Act does not permit piecemeal appeals against non-final orders. * Appeals – competence – preliminary objection for incompetence of appeal founded on interlocutory nature of impugned order sustained. * Judicial conduct – recusal – recusal alone, where it does not decide rights, does not render an order appealable.	25 August 2025