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 High Court granted an out-of-time appeal application, holding that alleged illegality in the trial judgment amounted to good cause despite delay not being fully explained.
The Court of Appeal upheld refusal to extend time to appeal, holding the appellant failed to explain a four-year delay and alleged irregularities did not amount to illegality.
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction in review proceedings to re-evaluate evidence, reassess credibility of witnesses, or address jurisdictional issues not manifest in the impugned judgment; review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record as per rule 66(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed the DPP’s appeal, upholding the finding that the High Court appeal was filed out of time under section 379(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The High Court granted bail to five applicants charged with economic and corruption offences, imposing different bond and surety conditions based on the charges and property value.
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal after finding the trial proceedings were a nullity because the charge was not read and plea was not properly taken.
Conviction cannot stand where documentary evidence was admitted but not read out as required by law; expunging such evidence leaves prosecution case unsupported, warranting acquittal.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court appeal was time barred and improperly noticed, quashed the conviction, and set aside the three-year sentence.
The trial was a nullity because it was conducted by a District Magistrate in a Resident Magistrate's Court, contrary to Section 6(1)(c) of the Magistrates Courts' Act, 1984. The court was not duly constituted, rendering all proceedings, conviction, and sentence invalid.
Source excerpt
The subordinate court erred in acquitting the respondents under section 225(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1985, as the law only allows for discharge, not acquittal, after 60 days without a certificate. Further, a preliminary hearing is not a hearing of the charge under section 222. The proceedings were not rendered a nullity as no miscarriage of justice was shown. The lower court failed to exercise its discretion judiciously.
Source excerpt
Explore more
