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 allowed revision and set aside an order giving 1,035 bales of tobacco to the complainant, directing return of the bales to Magono’s family.
The appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient and good cause for the delay, particularly for the two years following the striking out of the notice of appeal. The grounds advanced were not legally sufficient to justify the inordinate delay. The trial tribunal's dismissal of the application for extension of time was justified.
Source excerpt
The High Court properly exercised its discretion under the Proceeds of Crime Act, meeting statutory preconditions for restraining and disposal orders, and did not err in considering restitution provisions or in applying orders to property of parties with interest but not charged.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal upheld restitution of forfeited livestock, holding the Environmental Management Act’s forfeiture provision prevailed and no sale of the animals was proved.
The High Court quashed David Edward’s conviction for possession of suspected stolen property, finding the charge was wrongly framed and the trial was vitiated.
The decision under section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code is a decree and therefore appealable; revision cannot be used as an alternative to appeal when the right of appeal exists. The applicant had an available remedy by way of appeal and thus the application for revision is misconceived.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that a charge alleging receipt of property bought with stolen money disclosed no offence, making the trial a nullity and voiding restitution.
The High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge to a refund order, holding the lower court record should be revised before deciding entitlement to the seized money.
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal after finding non-compliance with section 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code and ordered a retrial before a different magistrate.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld restitution, finding the complainant had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the disputed property belonged to it.
Explore more
