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 appellant's report to police was based on reasonable and probable cause; thus, the tort of false imprisonment was not proved. The trial court had jurisdiction as the suit was based on tort, not a land dispute. Damages were not justified as economic loss was not proved.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the first and second defendants unlawfully denied access to a hunting block, and awarded general damages for false imprisonment and denial of access.
The High Court held that a false imprisonment claim was not time barred because the alleged detention was a continuing wrong ending on release.
The respondent failed to prove false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and defamation to the required standard. The arrest and prosecution were lawful and based on probable cause, and no damage was established. The trial court's award of damages was unsupported by evidence and legal principles.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal nullified the lower court proceedings because the successor magistrate failed to record reasons for taking over the trial.
The appellant, acting in his official capacity as a police officer, lawfully detained the respondents based on information received regarding breach of peace; the detention was not false imprisonment, and the trial court erred in holding the appellant personally liable and awarding general damages without legal justification.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s arrest and detention were lawful and dismissed her tort claim for false imprisonment and related damages.
The High Court held the District Court had jurisdiction over a malicious prosecution claim and allowed the appeal, quashing the ruling that struck out the suit.
The evidence did not establish that the appellant or its employees participated in the arrest or reported the respondents as suspects; the appellant merely reported a theft by another individual and vehicle, and the subsequent actions by police were outside the appellant's control. The trial court erred in its analysis and conclusion, and the tort of false imprisonment was not proved against the appellant to the required standard.
Source excerpt
The respondent failed to prove all four essential ingredients of malicious prosecution, particularly absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and that proceedings terminated in her favour; the appellant's actions were justified by his honest belief in ownership and no evidence of ill motive was established.
Source excerpt
Explore more
