Court of Appeal of Tanzania

This is the highest level in the justice delivery system in Tanzania. The Court of Appeal draws its mandate from Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The Court hears appeals on both point of law and facts for cases originating from the High Court of Tanzania and Magistrates with extended jurisdiction in exercise of their original jurisdiction or appellate and revisional jurisdiction over matters originating in the District Land and Housing Tribunals, District Courts and Courts of Resident Magistrate. The Court also hears similar appeals from quasi judicial bodies of status equivalent to that of the High Court. It further hears appeals on point of law against the decision of the High Court in matters originating from Primary Courts. The Court of Appeal also exercises jurisdiction on appeals originating from the High Court of Zanzibar except for constitutional issues arising from the interpretation of the Constitution of Zanzibar and matters arising from the Kadhi Court.

Physical address

26 Kivukoni Road Building P.O. Box 9004, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.

Visit website

https://jmap.judiciary.go.tz/jmap/jmap-coa

3,248 judgments

Advanced search

Court registries

Court of Appeal Arusha Registry
Court of Appeal Bukoba Registry
Court of Appeal Chake Chake Pemba Registry
Court of Appeal Dar es Salaam Registry
Court of Appeal Dodoma Registry
Court of Appeal Iringa Registry
Court of Appeal Kigoma Registry

All years

Filters

Filters
Judges

Bampikya, SDR

Bubeshi, J.

Bwana, J.A.

Chipeta, Ag. J.A.

Chipeta, J.

Feleshi, J.A.

Fikirini, J.A.

Galeba, J.A.

Ismail, J.A.

Issa, J.A.

Juma, Ag. C.J.

Juma, C.J.

Juma, J.A.

Kaijage, J.A.

Kairo, J.A.

Kaji, J.

Kaji, J.A.

Kalegeya, J.

Kalegeya, J.A.

Kente, J.

Kente, J.A.

Kerefu, J.A.

Khamis, J.A.

Kihwelo, J.A.

Kileo, J.

Kileo, J.A.

Kimaro, J.

Kimaro, J.A.

Kisanga, J.

Kisanga, J.A.

Kitusi, J.A.

Korosso, J.A.

Kwariko, J.A.

Levira, J.A.

Lila, J.A.

Luanda, J.

Luanda, J.A.

Lubuva, J.

Lubuva, J.A.

Lugakingira, J.A.

Luvuba, J.

Maige, J.A.

Makame, J.A.

Makungu, J.A.

Mandia, J.A.

Mapigano, Ag. J.A.

Mashaka, J.A.

Masoud, J.A.

Massati, J.A.

Mbarouk, J.A.

Mdemu, J.A.

Mfalila, Ag. J.A.

Mfalila, J.A.

Mgeyekwa, J.A.

Mgonya, J.A.

Mjasiri, J.A.

Mkuye, J.A.

Mlacha, J.A.

Mmilla, J.A.

Mnzavas, J.A.

Mroso, J.

Mroso, J.A.

Msoffe, J.

Msoffe, J.A.

Msumi, J.

Mugasha, J.A.

Munuo, Ag. C.J.

Munuo, J.

Munuo, J.A.

Muruke, J.A.

Mussa, J.

Mussa, J.A.

Mustafa, J.A.

Mutungi, J.

Mwaikugile, J.

Mwakasendo, J.A.

Mwambegele, J.A.

Mwampashi, J.A.

Mwandambo, J.A.

Mwangesi, J.A.

Mwarija, J.A.

Mziray, J.A.

Ndika, J.A.

Ngwembe, J.A.

Nsekela, J.

Nsekela, J.A.

Nyalali, C.J.

Omar, J.A.

Oriyo, J.A.

Othman, C.J.

Othman, J.

Othman, J.A.

Phillip, J.

Ramadhani, C.J.

Ramadhani, J.

Ramadhani, J.A.

Revira, J.A.

Rumanyika, DR.

Rumanyika, J.A.

Rutakangwa, J.

Rutakangwa, J.A

Samatta, C.J.

Samatta, J.A.

Sehel, J.

Sehel, J.A.

Shangali - DR

Shangwa, J.

Songoro, J.

Wambali, J.A.
Labels

Reported
Outcomes

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.

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.

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 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 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, 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 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 dismiss it in its entirety

Appeal dismissed

Appeal dismissed with costs

Appeal dismissed with costs to the third respondent

Appeal fails and dismissed

Appeal fails in its entirety and is accordingly dismissed

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

Appeal has no merit and it is dismissed it with costs

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 devoid of merit, and hereby dismiss it with costs.

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 with costs for being unmerited.

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

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 with cost

Appeal is thus dismissed with costs

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

Appeal nullified

Appeal partially allowed

Appeal partly 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 stand dismissed with costs

Appeal strike out l with no order as to costs.

Appeal struck out

Appeal succeeds

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 without merit and, it is accordingly dismissed with costs.

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.

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 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.

Application allowed

Application allowed for extension of time to file the appeal

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed with costs

Application dismissed in it entirely

Application dismissed with costs

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 is dismissed.

Application for review granted

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 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 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 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 strike out

Application strike out with costs

Application struck out

Application struck out with costs.

Application with no merit and dismissed it with costs.

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.

Dismissed the second respondent's preliminary objection

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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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 satisfied that the appeal is not merited and accordingly dismiss it with costs.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.

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.

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.

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

Notice of Appeal has to be amended

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

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.

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

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 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

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

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

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

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.

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 notice of appeal lodged by the respondent

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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
Topics

Alibi

Appellant to be brought before High Court for sentencing

Appellant to be released

Armed robbery

Child giving evidence s127(2) and (3) Evidence Act

Concurrent Findings of Fact

Confession

Conviction quashed

Criminal Practice and Procedure

Death sentence

Defence of Insanity

Drugs

Evidence

Expert evidence

Fatally defective charge sheet

Grave sexual abuse s138(1)(a) and s138(2)(b) of the Penal Code

High court judgment set aside

Impregnating a school girl s35 CAP 353

Incest

Jurisdiction

Labour Law

Land Law

Law reform recommendation

Lawfulness of Sub-Tenancy

Legal representation denied s310 CPA

Murder

Obtaining goods by false pretences s302

Rape of minor s130(1)(2)(e)

Rent Restriction Act

Repudiated confession

Retrial ordered

Revision s4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act

Right to fair trial infringed

Rules of evidence misapplied

Sentence increased

Sentence reduced

Sentence set aside

Statutes

Substitute acquittal with conviction

Substitute conviction with one for lesser offence

Summing-up to assessors

Tanzanian caselaw

Tender

Trial delay

Unnatural offences

Unnatural offences s154(1)(a)

Vacant Possession and Trespasser Protection

Victim is a minor

Visiting locus in quo

Wildlife trophy

Witnesses

extension of time

retrenchment

rule 21 of the Judicature and Application of Laws (Electronic filing) Rules 2018

stay of execution

suits
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:

Citation	Judgment date
January 2025
Agripina Balanzize vs Victor Mathias Malema (Civil Application No. 1283 of 2024) [2025] TZCA 2 (14 January 2025)	14 January 2025
December 2024
Mohamed Saleh Abri and Another vs Fatuma Shabani Said Dololo (Legal Representative of the late Shabani Said Dololo) and Another (Civil Application No. 71/17 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1305 (27 December 2024)	27 December 2024
Bank of Africa Tanzania Limited vs Patrick Mashele and Another (Civil Application No. 527 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1303 (24 December 2024)	24 December 2024
Cosmas Mwaifani vs Minister for Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 446 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1302 (24 December 2024)	24 December 2024
Patrick Muga vs National Bank of Commerce (NBC Ltd) (Civil Appeal No. 459 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1297 (23 December 2024)	23 December 2024
Hot Buns Ltd vs Deogratius Makene (Civil Application No. 587/18 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1296 (13 December 2024)	13 December 2024
Twiga Feeds Limited and Another vs National Investments Company Limited and Another (Civil Application No. 1328 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1264 (10 December 2024)	10 December 2024
Mwalupise Mfikwa and Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2022) [2024] TZCA 1209 (6 December 2024)	6 December 2024
Oryx Energies Tanzania Limited(Formerly known as Oryx Oil Company Limited) vs Oilcom Tanzania Limited (Civil Application No. 910 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1208 (6 December 2024)	6 December 2024
Maginga Business Holding Company Limited and 4 Others vs CRDB Bank Plc (Civil Application No. 1273 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1309 (2 December 2024)	2 December 2024
November 2024
Industrial Gases and Chemicals Limited and 2 Others vs Azania Bank Limited and Another (Civil Application No. 578/01 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1154 (28 November 2024)	28 November 2024
Mantra Tanzania Limited vs Joaquim P. Bonaventure (Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1153 (28 November 2024)	28 November 2024
Debora James Ikhala vs Nyasulu Enock Nkyapi (Civil Appeal No. 665 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1143 (25 November 2024)	25 November 2024
Sharifa Habibu (as legal personal representative of the estate of the late Habibu Ally) vs Mohamed Juma Ali and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 445 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1144 (25 November 2024)	25 November 2024
Benjamin Mazigo and Another vs Tanzania Investment Bank (Civil Appeal No. 401 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1137 (21 November 2024)	21 November 2024
National Bank of Commerce Limited vs Mongateko Makongoro Monateko and Another (Civil Appeal No. 322 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1136 (21 November 2024)	21 November 2024
Sammy Mathale vs Lydia Festo Mwambashi (Civil Appeal No. 728/18 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1310 (20 November 2024)	20 November 2024
Cable Television Network (CTV) Limited vs Potential Protas Byarugaba (Civil Application No. 17/18 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1124 (19 November 2024)	19 November 2024
Charles Humphrey Richard Simion and Another vs Dar es Salaam City Council (Civil Appeal No. 303 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1135 (19 November 2024)	19 November 2024
Martha Kaaya Harvey vs Richard Anthony Ghaui and Another (Civil Application No. 176/17 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1129 (19 November 2024)	19 November 2024
M & Five B. Hotel & Tours Ltd and 2 Others vs Exim Bank Tanzania Ltd. (Civil Application No. 1019 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1130 (19 November 2024)	19 November 2024
Michael Martin Kabengwe vs Farida Yusuf Omari and Another (Civil Application No. 1161 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1141 (19 November 2024)	19 November 2024
Salehe Hassan Mjinja vs Vocational Education and Training Authority (VETA) (Civil Appeal No. 508 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1128 (19 November 2024)	19 November 2024
Silaha Watison vs Kulwa Nassoro (Civil Application No. 536/17 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1131 (19 November 2024)	19 November 2024
Usafirishaji Mikoani Union Limited and 5 Others vs Kuringe Real Estate Co. Ltd. (Civil Application No. 1125 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1134 (19 November 2024)	19 November 2024
Guardian Limited vs Edmund Msangi (Civil Appeal No. 453 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1117 (15 November 2024)	15 November 2024
Jambo Foods Products Co. Limited vs Hassan Hussein Musa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 454 of 2022) [2024] TZCA 1116 (15 November 2024)	15 November 2024
Karim Shamshuddin Suleiman vs Maheshkumar Raojibhai Patel (Civil Appeal No. 470 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1110 (15 November 2024)	15 November 2024
Seif Suleiman Rashid (as an administrator of the estate of the late Zuhura Salum Hemed) vs Halima Suleiman (as administrator of the estate of the late Suleiman Rashid) (Civil Appeal No. 463 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1115 (15 November 2024)	15 November 2024
Kessy Mkaramba and 6 Others vs Hassan Mkamila and 31 Others (Civil Appeal No. 471 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1101 (14 November 2024)	14 November 2024
Laila Godfrey vs Nargis Ally Yusuph Mpore and Another (Civil Application No. 194/17 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1102 (14 November 2024)	14 November 2024
Mychel Andriand Takahindangeng vs Republic (Civil Application No. 61/01 of 2022) [2024] TZCA 1100 (14 November 2024)	14 November 2024
Shamim Omari Mwasha and Another vs Republic (Consolidated Criminal Appeals No. 173 and 182 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1105 (14 November 2024)	14 November 2024
Daniel Kisoka vs Mantra Tanzania Limited (Civil Application No. 196/18 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1094 (13 November 2024)	13 November 2024
Mariam Juma Mohamedi vs Mariam Nassoro Kipinduka and Another (Civil Application No. 285/01 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 1103 (13 November 2024)	13 November 2024
Oilcom Tanzania Limited vs Oryx Oil Company Limited and Another (Civil Reference No. 915 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1090 (13 November 2024)	13 November 2024
Simon Josephat vs Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 441 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1095 (13 November 2024)	13 November 2024
Voltalia Protugal S.A. vs Nextgen Solawazi Limited (Civil Appeal No. 444 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1092 (13 November 2024)	13 November 2024
Abdallah Juma Kulava vs Faustine Gisi Kazinza (Civil Appeal No. 450 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1093 (12 November 2024)	12 November 2024
Abdallah Juma Kulava vs Faustine Gisi Kazinza (Civil Appeal No. 450 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1107 (12 November 2024)	12 November 2024
Ecobank Tanzania Limited vs Double A Company Limited and 3 Others (Civil Application No. 1056 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1089 (12 November 2024)	12 November 2024
M/S Sahara Media Group Limited vs Joyce Cyril Mwacha (Civil Application No. 959 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1099 (12 November 2024)	12 November 2024
Nasor Hamis Nasor vs Regina Ishemwambura (Civil Appeal No. 552 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1086 (12 November 2024)	12 November 2024
Nasor Hamis Nasor vs Regina Ishemwambura (Civil Reference No. 08 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1087 (12 November 2024)	12 November 2024
Usangu Logistics Limited vs Sas Logistics Limited (Civil Application No. 1015 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1098 (12 November 2024)	12 November 2024
Usangu Logistics Limited vs Sas Logistics Limited (Civil Application No. 1031 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1096 (12 November 2024)	12 November 2024
Mahiku Abdallah Maharagande (Administration of the estate of the late Abdallah Hamis Maharagande) vs Mtegame Abdallah Maharagande and Another (Civil Application No. 1026 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1076 (8 November 2024)	8 November 2024
Simply Fresh Tanzania Limited and 3 Others vs Yasmine Haji (Civil Appeal No. 435 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1077 (8 November 2024)	8 November 2024
Hafsa Ally Makundi vs Johnson Amani (Civil Application No. 1029 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1064 (7 November 2024)	7 November 2024
Ganjaga Lameck Kafwimba vs Scania Tanzania Limited (Civil Appeal No. 457 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1053 (6 November 2024)	6 November 2024