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 applicants failed to establish that they are in the custody of the respondents; there is no sufficient proof of detention by the police. Therefore, the court cannot order their production or release under habeas corpus at this stage. However, the court directs the police to investigate the applicants' whereabouts due to the seriousness of the allegations and the state's duty to protect citizens.
Source excerpt
Section 148(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, while lacking a prescribed procedure for denial of bail in certain offences, is not unconstitutional because it is saved by Article 30(2) of the Constitution as a reasonable and proportionate limitation on personal liberty in the interest of public safety, order, and justice. The provision does not oust the judicial process, and the offences listed justify the restriction. The High Court erred in declaring the provision unconstitutional and in disregarding binding precedent.
Source excerpt
Section 148(5) of the CPA is unconstitutional as it denies bail for a range of offences without providing a meaningful procedure or judicial discretion, violating articles 13(3) and 15(2)(a) of the Constitution. The provision is not saved by article 30(2) as it lacks adequate safeguards, is overly broad, and is susceptible to abuse and arbitrary decisions. The denial of bail for armed robbery under section 148(5)(a)(i) had already been declared null and void. The remaining part of section 148(5) is given an 18-month period for rectification, after which it will be invalid if not amended.
Source excerpt
The plaintiff was unlawfully detained for nine days without bail or charge for an alleged offence that was not substantiated, violating statutory and constitutional rights to liberty; both the 1st and 3rd defendants are personally liable for false imprisonment.
Source excerpt
Section 148(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional because it denies an accused person a meaningful opportunity to be heard before being denied bail, lacks procedural safeguards, is arbitrary and overbroad, and thus violates Articles 13(6)(a) and 15 of the Constitution. The provision is not saved by Article 30(2) as it fails the tests of lawfulness and proportionality.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal dismissed a habeas corpus appeal, holding the High Court should have addressed the legality of detention after acquittal, not the statute’s constitutionality.
The High Court erred by addressing the constitutionality of the Preventive Detention Act, which was not properly raised in the application. The application was solely for habeas corpus based on the legality of detention after acquittal, not the constitutionality of the Act. The appeal is dismissed as the original application did not challenge the Act's constitutionality.
Source excerpt
Section 35(3)(g) is not unconstitutional as it is not discriminatory, does not violate fair hearing or presumption of innocence, and is validated by claw-back provisions for public interest, with adequate safeguards against arbitrariness.
Source excerpt
Section 148(5)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional as it deprives personal liberty without a meaningful procedure prescribed by law, is overly broad, and does not fit within the derogation clauses of Article 30(2)(b). It is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 15(2)(a).
Source excerpt
The application for habeas corpus was rendered moot and withdrawn because the applicants had already been produced before the District Court, satisfying the core requirement of the writ.
Source excerpt
Explore more
