Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The appeal is incompetent because the notice and petition of appeal were filed in the name of a different person than the appellant, rendering the proceedings irrelevant and incapable of being acted upon by the court.
Source excerpt
High Court appeal from convictions for aiding illegal entry was dismissed. The court upheld the guilty pleas, sentence, and forfeiture of three vehicles.
The order returning the motor vehicle to Adam Francis Kilawe was improper as he was not a party to the proceedings, and the respondents were not served with the appeal, violating their right to be heard. The High Court set aside the lower court's order and directed proper procedure for interested parties to apply regarding forfeiture.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld convictions for unlawful presence in Tanzania, holding the guilty plea was unequivocal, the charge was proper, and fresh evidence was inadmissible.
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction for unlawful presence in Tanzania, holding the dispute over citizenship could not be resolved in the criminal appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that a non-citizen worked without valid work and residence permits, making the employment contract void and defeating compensation claims.
The petition is frivolous because the alleged discrimination in Regulation 9(1) of the Immigration Regulations has been cured by amendment (GN No. 541 of 2015) replacing 'wife' with 'spouse', and section 39(1) of the Immigration Act, when read with the Interpretation of Laws Act, includes both genders. There is no inconsistency between the principal Act and the subsidiary legislation, and the petition lacks legal basis.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out an immigration application by Peter Erick Mrina, holding it was in substance judicial review for mandamus and was incompetent without leave.
The trial court erred by imposing custodial sentences without first considering the option of a fine as required by law, especially since the appellants were first offenders who pleaded guilty and the offences were not grave. The order for consecutive sentences was also improper in the absence of special circumstances.
Source excerpt
The trial court erred by imposing a custodial sentence without considering the alternative of a fine, the appellants' status as first offenders, their guilty pleas, the non-grave nature of the offence, and the time already spent in custody. The sentence was therefore improper and required appellate intervention.
Source excerpt
Explore more
