|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Judgment |
4 January 2024 |
|
|
Judgment |
28 December 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
21 December 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
21 December 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
14 December 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
13 December 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
13 December 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
13 December 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
12 December 2023 |
|
A second review of the same matter is barred by Rule 66(7); no extension of time can revive a repeatedly reviewed decision.
* Criminal procedure – application for extension of time under Rule 10 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules – discretion requires good cause and an arguable case; * Review – requirements under Rule 66(1) (manifest error, denial of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, fraud/perjury); * Review procedure – Rule 66(3) 60-day filing period; * Finality – Rule 66(7) prohibits a second review of the same matter; * Public policy – finality and certainty of decisions.
|
Judgment |
16 November 2023 |
|
Extension of time granted where delay was reasonably explained and intended review disclosed arguable grounds under Rule 66(1).
* Civil procedure — extension of time (Rule 10) — requirement to show good cause; * Review procedure — grounds for review under Rule 66(1): manifest error on the face of the record and nullity; * Delay attributable to incarceration — reasonableness of short post-receipt delay; * Discretionary exercise of court’s power guided by diligence, length/reasons for delay and arguable case requirement.
|
Judgment |
15 November 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
26 October 2023 |
|
Assessors' procedural omission curable; coerced statements excluded, but remaining evidence proved murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law — assessors' participation and summing-up — procedural omission curable if no prejudice; Evidence — voluntariness of confessions — prosecution’s burden to prove; Evidence — circumstantial and oral confessions — requirements for conviction beyond reasonable doubt; Admission of evidence — necessity for reasoned ruling in trial-within-trial.
|
Judgment |
23 October 2023 |
|
Conviction for heroin trafficking upheld; thirty-year sentence set aside and enhanced to mandatory life imprisonment.
* Criminal law – narcotics trafficking – proof of possession and knowledge (actual and constructive) – dominion and control. * Search and seizure – application of Drug Control and Enforcement Act vs. Criminal Procedure Act – night searches and procedural safeguards. * Evidence – chain of custody and admissibility of physical exhibits – relevance, materiality, competence. * Charges – effect of omitting reference to amending Act – curable defects. * Sentencing – mandatory life imprisonment for trafficking under DCEA; appellate enhancement.
|
Judgment |
18 September 2023 |
|
Court substituted murder conviction with manslaughter, finding malice aforethought not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal procedure – committal proceedings – compliance with s.246(2) CPA; Evidence – admissibility of witness and post‑mortem evidence via video conferencing where accused and counsel are present; Assessors – sufficiency of judicial summing up on malice aforethought and local custom; Homicide – proof of malice aforethought beyond reasonable doubt; Appeal – substitution of conviction and sentence from murder to manslaughter.
|
Judgment |
12 September 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
11 September 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
5 September 2023 |
|
Review application dismissed: alleged errors were not manifest on the face of the record and review cannot re-hear an appeal.
Criminal law – review jurisdiction – Rule 66(1) – manifest error on face of record; appellate procedure – review is not a rehearing of appeal; admissibility/reliability of exhibits and seizure procedure; correction/enhancement of illegal sentence on appeal (even absent cross-appeal).
|
Judgment |
11 August 2023 |
|
Review application alleging manifest errors and denial of hearing dismissed; original conviction and sentence upheld.
Review — manifest error on face of record — limited jurisdiction; identification evidence — recognition vs identification parade; proof of death — admissibility and sufficiency without post‑mortem report; review is not an appeal; right to be heard — grounds considered.
|
Judgment |
10 August 2023 |
|
Illegality in trial transfer can constitute good cause to grant extension to lodge a review despite procedural omissions.
* Criminal procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – illegality (improper transfer) as good cause for extension.
* Review – Rule 66(1) – requirement to show an arguable ground of review ordinarily required when seeking extension.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Section 3A – interests of substantive justice may cure irregularities and justify extension.
|
Judgment |
9 August 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
9 August 2023 |
|
Whether review under rule 66(1) is justified where alleged manifest error, denial of legal aid and absence of rejoinder were raised.
* Appellate review — Rule 66(1) TACR — scope limited to manifest error on face of record or denial of opportunity to be heard; * Manifest error on face of record — must be obvious and not involve lengthy argument; * Legal aid on appeal — discretionary under Legal Aid Act s.33(1), not automatic; * Right to be heard — absence of recorded rejoinder does not necessarily show denial if judgment reflects balanced consideration of arguments.
|
Judgment |
7 August 2023 |
|
A review application must show a specific manifest error on the record, not merely reargue appeal grounds.
Criminal procedure — Review of Court of Appeal judgment — Rule 66(1) — Manifest error on the face of the record — Distinction between grounds of review and grounds of appeal — Requirement to particularise patent error in supporting affidavit — Opportunity to be heard (rule 66(1)(b)).
|
Judgment |
7 August 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
1 August 2023 |
|
The DPP may validly enter nolle prosequi before verdict, but this power is limited by constitutional/statutory safeguards.
Criminal law – Nolle prosequi – section 91(1) Criminal Procedure Act – limits on DPP’s power by Article 59B(4) Constitution and section 8 NPSA – s.91(3) safeguards (Act No.1/2022) – retrial orders – abuse of court process – revisional jurisdiction of Court of Appeal limited to High Court decisions – committal proceedings in subordinate courts.
|
Judgment |
26 July 2023 |
|
Review dismissed: alleged denial of rejoinder lacked prejudice and claim of nullity required reassessment of evidence, appropriate for appeal.
* Criminal procedure — Review under rule 66(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules — scope and limits of review.
* Right to be heard — rejoinder — requirement to demonstrate prejudice from omission.
* Nullity — expunged evidence and need for re-assessment of evidence constitute matters for appeal, not review.
* Public policy — review process should not be used as a backdoor appeal; finality of litigation.
|
Judgment |
26 July 2023 |
|
Review dismissed: alleged identification misdirection and deprivation of hearing are not manifest errors or grounds for review.
* Criminal law — Review of Court of Appeal decision — Scope of Rule 66(1) — manifest error on the face of the record required for review. * Evidence — Visual identification and alleged double standard — issues considered on appeal are not reviewable as manifest errors. * Procedure — Review is not a re‑hearing or appeal; mere dissatisfaction with judgment insufficient. * Right to be heard — deprivation requires actual failure to adjudicate a ground properly raised by the party.
|
Judgment |
25 July 2023 |
|
Omission to record a promised rejoinder in judgment does not by itself constitute denial of the right to be heard.
* Criminal procedure – right to be heard – rejoinder – whether omission in judgment to record a rejoinder amounts to denial of hearing and warrants review under Rule 66(1)(b).
* Appellate practice – nature of judgments – judgment not a transcript; must reflect balanced account of parties' submissions and Court's consideration.
* Prejudice requirement – silence in judgment does not equate to prejudice where submissions are summarized and addressed.
|
Judgment |
25 July 2023 |
|
Review application dismissed: alleged errors were not manifest and did not occasion miscarriage of justice.
Criminal law – Review under Rule 66(1)(a) – "manifest error on the face of the record" – requires obvious/patent mistake; General conviction – innocuous irregularity; Proof of penetration – complainants’ testimony and medical reports; Plea ambiguity – cannot be raised in review if not raised on appeal; Review is not rehearing/appeal in disguise.
|
Judgment |
25 July 2023 |
|
Review alleging manifest errors in drug‑trafficking appeal dismissed as re‑examination of evidence and improper grounds.
Criminal procedure — Review under rule 66(1)(a) — Meaning of manifest error on the face of the record; Criminal law — Chain of custody, labelling and sealing of seized exhibits (PGO 229) — when failure to comply amounts to reviewable error; Evidence — Re-assessment of evidence is not a ground for review; Criminal procedure — Sentencing — commencement date and interference with term; Review not a substitute for appeal.
|
Judgment |
21 July 2023 |
|
Review application dismissed: review cannot substitute for appeal; alleged denial of hearing and child-evidence error were not reviewable.
* Appellate review jurisdiction – Rule 66(1) – limits of review; not a substitute for appeal. * Review grounds – manifest error on face of record; denial of right to be heard; jurisdiction. * Criminal procedure – right to be heard – rejoinder and written submissions – distinction between error by lower court and deprivation by appellate court. * Evidence – child witness – section 127(7) Evidence Act – promise to tell truth; implied promise and evaluation of credibility.
|
Judgment |
18 July 2023 |
|
Extension granted where unrepresented applicant mistakenly filed revision and prima facie review grounds under Rule 66(1) shown.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to apply for review – applicant must show good cause for delay and prima facie that intended review falls within Rule 66(1); excusable technical delay where unrepresented lay litigant mistakenly files revision; admissibility of cautioned statements; chain of custody; right to be heard.
|
Judgment |
12 July 2023 |
|
Search conducted without warrant after prior information was unlawful; seized evidence expunged and conviction quashed.
Criminal procedure – search and seizure – emergency exception (s.42(1)(b) CPA) – prior information negates emergency – officers of Drugs Authority subject to CPA search requirements – illegally obtained evidence expunged.
|
Judgment |
22 June 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
6 June 2023 |
|
Non‑disclosure of a physical exhibit at committal is fatal unless properly tendered under section 289, rendering conviction unsafe.
* Criminal procedure – committal proceedings – requirement to read and explain Information and substance of evidence – disclosure of physical exhibits – equality of arms. * Admissibility – non-disclosure at committal – resort to section 289(1)/(4) CPA to tender additional evidence. * Evidence – identification in court and non‑objection do not cure committal non‑compliance. * Conviction unsustainable where primary exhibit expunged.
|
Judgment |
5 June 2023 |
|
Appellants’ challenge that drugs were planted and chain of custody broken rejected; conviction and sentences upheld.
* Criminal law – Narcotic drugs – Trafficking and unlawful possession – Whether drugs were found aboard accused's vessel and could have been planted.
* Evidence – Chain of custody – Whether strict paper trail required for large-quantity narcotics; admissibility and reliability of exhibits.
* Criminal procedure – Particulars of charge – Whether omission of specific mode of trafficking or exact locus rendered charge incurably defective.
* Burden of proof – Whether prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt.
|
Judgment |
19 May 2023 |
|
Extension granted where prisoner timely handed review papers to prison but authorities delayed filing, satisfying good cause and arguable grounds.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time to apply for review — Rule 10 and Rule 66(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules — Prisoner diligence; delay by prison authorities as good cause — Arguable grounds (manifest error; denial of hearing).
|
Judgment |
12 May 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
5 May 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
5 May 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
5 May 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
4 May 2023 |
|
Oral proof of chain of custody sufficed for non-easily-tampered narcotics; acquittal substituted with conviction against respondent.
* Criminal law – Narcotics – Chain of custody – Oral evidence may suffice where paper trail is weak, especially for items not easily tampered with. * Evidence – No fixed number of witnesses required to prove a fact (s.143 Evidence Act); failure to call witnesses does not automatically warrant adverse inference where their evidence is otherwise covered. * Appellate review – Substitution of acquittal with conviction where trial court misapplied evidential principles.
|
Judgment |
28 April 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
27 April 2023 |
|
A review cannot be used to re-open or substitute an appeal on sentence selection; application dismissed.
Criminal law – Review jurisdiction of Court of Appeal – rule 66(1)(a) – manifest error on the face of the record – distinction between review and appeal – sentencing choice under WCA versus EOCCA.
|
Judgment |
24 April 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
24 April 2023 |
|
Appeal allowed: armed robbery conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove appellant was armed or threatened the victim.
Criminal law – armed robbery – requirement to prove accused was armed or threatened victim; cautioned statements – statutory timing under s.50(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act; admissibility of statements of absent witnesses – compliance with s.34B Evidence Act; expungement of improperly admitted statements; appellate re-evaluation where conviction unsafe; reasonable doubt from defence explanation.
|
Judgment |
12 April 2023 |
|
Appeal allowed: convictions quashed where identification, cautioned statements and identification of recovered property were unreliable.
Criminal law – Visual identification and identification parades – requirement for prior detailed descriptions to police – cautioned statements – voluntariness and compliance with sections 57–58 CPA – identification of recovered property – necessity of peculiar marks for doctrine of recent possession.
|
Judgment |
11 April 2023 |
|
Failure to list physical narcotic exhibits at committal rendered them inadmissible and convictions unsafe.
Criminal procedure – committal proceedings – Rule 8(2) CECD Rules/section 246(2) CPA – requirement to read and list statements, documents and physical exhibits – failure to list physical exhibits fatal – section 289(1) CPA remedy to call additional evidence – expungement of unlisted narcotic exhibits – sufficiency of remaining evidence to sustain conviction.
|
Judgment |
11 April 2023 |
|
|
Judgment |
6 April 2023 |
|
Proceedings where key witnesses testified in the accused’s absence violated fair trial, nullifying conviction and ordering retrial.
* Criminal procedure – Right to fair trial – Evidence generally to be taken in accused’s presence (s.196 CPA) – Exception where accused absent (s.226(1) CPA) – Improvident use of s.226(1) can vitiate trial. * Criminal procedure – Duty to furnish witness’s statement to accused (s.9(3) CPA) – Mandatory requirement; non-compliance may be curable if no prejudice. * Evidence – Recall of witnesses – refusal to recall witnesses who testified in accused’s absence can infringe fair hearing. * Appellate jurisdiction – Court may invoke revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA where first appellate court failed to address a ground of appeal.
|
Judgment |
4 April 2023 |