|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2020 |
|
|
Withdrawal of suit allowed with leave to refile; defendants awarded costs; refiling subject to limitation law.
Civil procedure – withdrawal of suit under Order XXIII r.1(2)(b) – costs follow the event – leave to refile granted subject to law of limitation.
|
25 November 2020 |
|
Court set aside tribunal judgment for defective pleadings and ordered retrial after amendment and limitation/res judicata check.
Civil procedure – pleadings – requirement to plead date of accrual of cause of action (Order VII r1(e), CPC) – failure to plead date of trespass prevents determination of limitation. Civil procedure – description of immovable property – mandatory requirement (Order VII r3, CPC) – inadequate description renders suit incompetent. Res judicata – identity of subject matter requires sufficiently particular pleadings to compare proceedings. Revision – High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under s.43(1) Land Disputes Courts Act to set aside tribunal proceedings for procedural incompetence and order retrial.
|
24 November 2020 |
|
Land suit quashed for inadequate pleadings as to property description and failure to plead date of accrual of trespass.
Land law — pleadings for immovable property — requirement for sufficient description of the property (Order VII r3 CPC); Limitation — accrual of cause of action for trespass must be pleaded (Order VII r1(e) CPC); Res judicata — effect of prior dismissal/striking out and need for comparable subject matter; Revisional jurisdiction — power to set aside incompetent tribunal proceedings for failure to comply with mandatory pleading requirements.
|
24 November 2020 |
|
Application for extension dismissed: court functus officio; registry omission cured.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections – functus officio; extension of time to file revision in same court already having determined appeal is incompetent; procedural defect of omitting specific registry is technical and curable under overriding-objective/oxygen rule.
|
22 November 2020 |
|
Applicant failed to prove existence and terms of alleged oral borehole agreement; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – contract – oral versus written agreement – proof of existence and terms of alleged oral contract for borehole proceeds. Evidence – annexures to pleadings are not evidence unless properly admitted at trial. Local government – capacity to contract – alleged lack of authority of local authority signatories irrelevant where claimant relies on an oral agreement with an individual.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
Appeal dismissed: claimant failed to prove alleged oral borehole agreement; annexures to pleadings are not evidence.
Land law – contract — oral versus written agreement; burden of proof to establish existence and terms of an oral contract. Evidence — annexures to pleadings are not evidence; documentary evidence must be formally adduced. Local government law — capacity to contract under Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act not determinative where claim is based on an alleged oral agreement. Appeal — appellate court will not overturn factual finding where primary failure was proof by the claimant.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
The applicant’s duplicate extension application constituted an abuse of court process and was struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – preliminary objections – abuse of court process; forum shopping – duplication of extension applications for appeal processes. Appellate procedure – extension of time to apply for leave to appeal – interplay with pending application for extension to lodge notice of appeal; correct time limit is 30 days from lodging notice of appeal.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
Extension of time to appeal granted due to registry misplacement and prompt prosecution of prior application.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Application under s.41(2) Land Disputes Courts Act – requirement of sufficient cause. Delay caused by misplacement of court registry documents can constitute sufficient cause for extension. Diligent prosecution of an earlier extension application and prompt refiling support a finding of sufficient cause. Alleged illegality (locus standi) raised as part of grounds for extension.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
A four‑year delay was inordinate; alleged illegality and a misplaced file did not justify extension of time.
Extension of time – sufficiency of cause – inordinate delay of ~40 months – awaiting judgment/ proceedings and alleged misplaced court file not proven. Illegality – assessors' opinions and locus standi – not apparent on face of record and cannot alone justify extension of time. Proof required from registry or court officers where court file misplacement is alleged.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
Unexplained, inordinate delay and non-apparent illegality do not justify extension of time to appeal.
Extension of time – sufficient cause – applicant must account for each day of delay – inordinate unexplained delay fatal to application; Illegality as sufficient cause – must be apparent on the face of the record; assessors – absence or non-participation not established on face of judgment.
|
20 November 2020 |
|
Revision dismissed as time-barred and improperly brought under the Civil Procedure Code instead of the Land Disputes Courts Act.
Land law – Revision from District Land and Housing Tribunal – governed by s.43(1) Land Disputes Courts Act. Limitation – Law of Limitation Act, Part III item 21 fixes 60 days for revision applications. Procedure – Substance over form: cannot evade time bar by couching substantive attack as execution challenge. Application dismissed as time-barred and brought under wrong statutory provision.
|
16 November 2020 |
|
A revision under the Land Disputes Act cannot attack interlocutory tribunal rulings; application struck out as premature under s79 CPC.
Land law — Revisional jurisdiction under Cap. 216 — Interplay with Civil Procedure Code — Section 79(2) CPC bars revision/appeal against interlocutory decisions — Section 51(1)(b) Cap. 216 does not displace this rule — Premature revision dismissed for abuse of process.
|
16 November 2020 |
|
Extension granted because trial judgment contained an apparent legal anomaly requiring correction by revision.
Land law – extension of time under Law of Limitation Act s.14(1) – requirements per Lyamuya factors – illegality as ground for extension – illegality must be apparent on the face of the record – assessors’ non-participation and s.23(3) Land Disputes Courts Act – judgment must finally and conclusively determine controversy.
|
13 November 2020 |
|
Plaintiff awarded compensation for 16 unpaid square metres at paid rate; commercial-rate interest denied for lack of pleading.
Land acquisition – compensation – measurement by locus in quo – unpaid area entitlement; valuation categories and burden of proof for higher rates; departure from pleadings bars new claims (Order VII r.7 CPC); pre-judgment (commercial) interest must be pleaded; post-judgment interest under s.29 CPC.
|
11 November 2020 |
|
A prior probate court judgment conclusively determining a land sale ousts a tribunal’s jurisdiction; tribunal judgment nullified.
Evidence — judicial notice of prior judgment under Evidence Act s59(1)(d). Relevance of prior decisions — sections 42 and 43 Evidence Act; probate determinations as conclusive in subsequent proceedings. Jurisdiction — prior probate decision ousts tribunal's competence to re-adjudicate same issue. Revisional power — High Court nullifies tribunal proceedings under Land Disputes Courts Act s43(1)(b).
|
11 November 2020 |
|
Court lacks jurisdiction to extend limitation period; only the Minister may extend time under the Law of Limitations Act.
Law of Limitations – Extension of time to institute suit – Jurisdiction of court versus ministerial power – Statutory procedure for extending limitation periods; Civil procedure – application under sections 14(1) and 95 – limits of judicial authority to extend statutory limitation periods.
|
11 November 2020 |
|
Procedural irregularity in Ward Tribunal composition did not occasion failure of justice; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land Disputes – Ward Tribunal composition and quorum; application of Ward Tribunals Act via Section 10(2) Land Disputes Courts Act; res judicata—requirements of same parties, cause and final determination; awards of special and general damages—proof and tribunal discretion; Section 45—appeal cannot be reversed for procedural irregularity absent failure of justice.
|
11 November 2020 |
|
The applicant's subsequent suit was barred by res judicata and the appeal was dismissed.
Civil procedure – res judicata – identity of subject matter – subsequent suit barred where issue previously directly and substantially decided. Res judicata binds privies and persons claiming under prior parties. Ward Tribunal proceedings quashed where matter already determined.
|
10 November 2020 |
|
The applicant’s subsequent land claim was barred by res judicata as it repeated a previously decided dispute.
Land — Ownership dispute over building — Res judicata — Prior determination barred subsequent suit — Effect of res judicata on parties and privies — Ward Tribunal proceedings quashed.
|
10 November 2020 |
|
Appellants' armed robbery conviction upheld: proof, confession admissible, common intention found; recent-possession doctrine misapplied but appeal dismissed.
Criminal law — Armed robbery — Ingredients: theft plus use or threat of violence — proof by victim and medical evidence. Evidence — Confession — Admissibility: voluntariness objection must be raised at trial; unobjected confessions may stand. Evidence — Co-accused statements — May be used against others if corroborated. Criminal law — Common intention (s.23 Penal Code) — inferred from joint actions and conduct. Evidence — Recent possession doctrine — requires accused to be found in possession; inapplicable where property is with a third party. Procedure — Non-production of arresting officers immaterial where arrest is undisputed (memorandum of agreed facts).
|
9 November 2020 |
|
A revision that quashed the trial judgment rendered the subsequent appeal functus officio; the High Court struck out the appeal.
Land law – appeal and revision – revision setting aside trial judgment – effect on pending appeal – functus officio – revisional jurisdiction under section 43 of the Land Disputes Courts Act – right to be heard/impleadment of third party.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
High Court dismisses appeal and revises appellate judgment, striking out the appeal as functus officio after revisional order.
Land law – appeals and revision – revisional proceedings setting aside trial tribunal judgment – functus officio doctrine – duty to stay or strike out appeal – revision jurisdiction under section 43 Land Disputes Courts Act – right to be heard/impleading third party.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Failure to issue a valid 30-day statutory notice to the village council deprived the court of jurisdiction; suit struck out.
Local government — statutory 30 days' notice to sue — addressee and content requirements under Cap. 287 — letter to village chairman insufficient — lack of notice deprives court of jurisdiction (Lyamuya principle).
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Wrong citation of the enabling provision renders an extension application incompetent; application struck out with costs.
Land Disputes Courts Act — extension of time to appeal — correct provision for appeals from DLHT exercising appellate jurisdiction is section 38. Procedural law — citation of wrong enabling provision — incurable defect rendering application incompetent. Civil procedure — competence of application — when court is properly moved.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Where appeal originates from a Ward Tribunal a High Court certificate, not leave, is required; application struck out.
Appeals — Leave versus certificate — Where appeal to Court of Appeal originates from Ward Tribunal, section 47(3) Land Disputes Courts Act requires a High Court certificate on point of law, not leave under Appellate Jurisdiction Act. Time limits — Rule 45(a) Court of Appeal Rules (GN. 362/2017) allows 30 days for applications for leave to appeal. Procedural defects — Incorrect citation of revised edition year is a minor irregularity and not automatically fatal. Affidavit formalities — verification clause defects may be raised but substantive legal misjoinder is decisive.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Applicant's unexplained eighty-day delay after learning of dismissal failed to establish "good cause" for extension of time.
Limitation of actions – Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – extension of time – requirement to show "good cause" and provide relevant material to justify delay. Procedural irregularity alleged (non-notification of dismissal date) – insufficient where applicant delays further without explanation. Unexplained delay – eighty days between notice of dismissal and filing extension application fatal to claim for extension.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
The plaintiff’s fresh suit challenging execution of a prior decree is barred by section 38(1) and was struck out with costs.
Civil Procedure — Execution of decree — Questions arising out of execution cannot be entertained in a separate fresh suit — Section 38(1) Civil Procedure Code (Cap 33 R.E.2019); Preliminary objections — plaint discloses cause of action tied to execution; Suit struck out; Functus officio.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
The overriding-objective principle cannot cure a review application filed out of time where no extension was sought.
Procedural law – Time bar: review application filed out of the 30-day period is time-barred; Overriding-objective principle: cannot be used to circumvent statutory time limits where extension remedy exists; Civil procedure – extension of time: applicant must apply for extension if delayed; Finality and execution: courts will protect respondent’s reliance on finality of decisions and ongoing execution proceedings.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Appellant failed to prove disputed plots were part of the deceased's estate; respondents’ allocation evidence preferred.
Land law – ownership of disputed plots – burden of proof under section 110(1) Evidence Act; allocation evidence and family meeting minutes; administrator capacity – omission in title not fatal (Section 45, Land Disputes Courts Act); appellate review of factual findings.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Extension of time granted where delay resulted from legal aid provider’s inability to prepare submissions; timetable rescheduled.
Civil Procedure - extension of time under Sections 93 and 95 CPC - delay caused by legal aid provider's unavailability - excusable delay - rescheduling of written submissions timetable.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
A third party must first pursue objectional proceedings under Order XXI before suing to challenge an attachment.
Civil procedure – Attachment in execution – Objectional proceedings under Order XXI r.57 CPC – Effect of Order XXI r.62 – Third party challenging attachment must first pursue objectional proceedings; suit filed before determination is premature.
|
6 November 2020 |
|
Court granted a six‑month interim injunction to preserve the status quo in a disputed ownership of land.
Land law – temporary injunction – preservation of status quo in competing title claims; requirements: triable issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; uninvestigated forgery allegations do not negate a triable issue.
|
5 November 2020 |
|
Alleged illegality must be specifically shown and delay accounted for; bare assertions do not justify extension of time.
Land appeal — extension of time to appeal — applicant must account for each day of delay; allegation of illegality must be specific and established; mere assertion in affidavit insufficient; unexplained delay fatal to extension application.
|
4 November 2020 |
|
Applicant failed to particularise alleged illegality and did not adequately account for delay; appeal dismissed.
Extension of time – requirement to account for each day of delay; Illegality as ground for extension – must be apparent on record or clearly particularised and demonstrated (Ministry of Defence v Valambhia); Bare assertion of illegality is insufficient; Technical/execution-related delay does not excuse unexplained delay.
|
4 November 2020 |
| October 2020 |
|
|
Application to set aside dismissal granted where advocate’s sickness, evidenced by dispensary lab form, excused non-appearance.
Civil procedure – setting aside dismissal for non-appearance – sufficiency of medical evidence from dispensary to prove advocate’s sickness – preliminary objection striking off prayers in affidavit – burden to prove forgery of documentary evidence.
|
30 October 2020 |
|
Application for stay of execution was time-barred; no notice to show cause required as execution was within one year.
Land law – stay of execution – time bar – Order XXXIX Rule 5(2) CPC – tribunal’s power to entertain stay limited to period before appeal time expires. Civil procedure – execution – requirement for notice to show cause – Order XXI Rule 20(1)(a) – applies where execution is sought more than one year after decree. Land Disputes Courts Act – interplay with Civil Procedure Code on time limits for stay applications.
|
27 October 2020 |
|
Preliminary objection that extension application was time‑barred dismissed due to continuous prosecution and wrong timing of the limitation plea.
Land law – Limitation of actions – Law of Limitation Act s.3(1) and Schedule – Extension of time to appeal – Preliminary objection on limitation – continuous prosecution of proceedings prevents 'sleeping on rights'.
|
26 October 2020 |
|
A defective appellate tribunal judgment lacking reasons and assessors' opinion is set aside and remitted for proper judgment.
Civil procedure — Appellate judgment — Mandatory contents under Regulation 20(1)/Order XX R.4 — Reasons and points of determination required; assessors' opinion mandatory under Regulation 23; defective appellate judgment nullifies appeal; High Court revisional powers to set aside and remit for proper judgment.
|
26 October 2020 |
|
Applicants failed to account for unexplained six-month delay; extension of time to appeal denied with costs.
Extension of time — requirement to account for each day of delay — applicant must provide specific dates and documentary proof of requests for judgment copies — mere assertions insufficient — prior struck-out application and status as laypersons do not excuse lack of particulars.
|
26 October 2020 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where applicant failed to show an arguable point of law or reasonable prospects of success.
Land law — leave to appeal under section 47(2) Cap 216 — discretionary test for leave (arguable appeal/point of law) — assessment of evidential weight on ownership — validity of sale agreement and joinder of transferor's estate.
|
26 October 2020 |
|
Applicant failed to account for a two‑year delay; extension of time to seek leave to appeal denied and costs awarded.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – application under section 11(1) AJA – requirement to show good cause and account for each day of delay (Bushiri principle). Procedural law – Effect of previously struck‑out applications – refiling does not obviate need to establish reasons for subsequent delay (Ngoni Matengo principle inapplicable to excuse unexplained delay). Discretionary relief – Court will not extend time where applicant fails to establish sufficient cause or substantial prospects warranting override of prescribed time limits.
|
26 October 2020 |
|
Proceedings and judgment nullified where tribunal heard a suit against a deceased person without an appointed estate administrator.
Civil procedure – Representation of deceased party – Administrator of estate required to represent deceased in civil proceedings – Relatives without letters of administration lack locus standi – Failure to procure administrator or abate suit renders proceedings and judgment a nullity.
|
21 October 2020 |
|
Alleged illegality in the impugned judgment justified an extension of time to file appeal documents.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Whether mistake of advocate constitutes sufficient cause – Generally not sufficient unless established. Civil procedure – Extension of time – Illegality in impugned judgment as sufficient cause for extension. Appeals – Filing notice of appeal and leave to appeal – time extension and procedural compliance. Evidence – Allegation of illegality involving variation of trial tribunal findings without locus in quo visit and disputes over title transfer.
|
21 October 2020 |
|
Appeal dismissed: appellate court will not entertain issues of legal capacity raised for first time on appeal; trial tribunal's ownership finding upheld.
Civil procedure – appeal – points not raised at trial – appellate court will not entertain issues not pleaded or decided below. Land law – ownership dispute – evaluation of evidence by trial tribunal and finality of properly framed findings. Capacity to sue – corporate/association legal capacity and requirement of board resolution must be raised at trial.
|
21 October 2020 |
|
Appellate court upheld respondent’s purchase-based ownership; long possession supports adverse possession, not purchaser’s title.
Land law – proof of ownership – purchaser’s evidence vs adverse possession – reliance on vendor’s testimony and corroborative possession evidence. Evidence – evaluation and re-evaluation on appeal – weight of direct evidence versus hearsay and admissions. Prescription/adverse possession – long possession supports adverse possession claims, not ownership by purchase.
|
20 October 2020 |
|
Court granted 30-day extension to apply to set aside dismissal, finding advocate’s negligence and applicant’s military duties sufficient cause.
Extension of time – Law of Limitation Act s.14(1) – sufficiency of cause – advocate’s negligence and applicant’s military duties as justification for extension – duty to account for delay.
|
20 October 2020 |
|
Court granted extension of time to appeal due to delay in obtaining certified judgment and applicant's diligent follow-up.
Land law – extension of time to appeal under s.41(2) LDCA; requirement of 'sufficient cause' for extension; procedural delay in supply of certified judgment; status of litigant (layperson) and diligence in pursuing certified copy.
|
19 October 2020 |
|
High Court has jurisdiction over a land dispute from seizure of items on licensed land; applicant awarded value, interest and costs.
Land law – jurisdiction of land courts – dispute arising from seizure of goods on licensed land; confiscation and justification; admissibility and weight of prior criminal judgments in civil proceedings; proof of value of seized goods; remedies — damages, interest and costs.
|
19 October 2020 |
|
Revision dismissed; tribunal correctly found submissions filed late (payment date is filing date) and dismissed for want of prosecution.
Land law – revision of Tribunal decision – scope of revision versus appeal – Court confined to record and affidavit. Civil procedure – filing date – date of payment of filing fees constitutes filing date (John Chuwa v Antony Ciza). Civil procedure – extension of time – illegality and chances of success cannot be relied upon when not properly before the Tribunal or record. Civil procedure – dismissal for want of prosecution where submissions filed out of time without leave is proper.
|
19 October 2020 |
|
Late amendment sought to increase disputed land from 30 to 60 acres was refused as changing the suit's character and prejudicial.
Civil procedure — Amendment of pleadings under Order VI r.17 — Limits: amendments must not introduce a new cause of action or change character of suit. Procedure — Late amendments after commencement of hearing — risk of prejudice, delay and need to recall witnesses. Pleadings — Responsibility of parties for facts in pleadings; blaming counsel error is insufficient where party verified documents.
|
19 October 2020 |