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 rejected a plea of autrefois acquit, holding that the earlier case concerned an extract resolution, while this case concerns different minutes.
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, quashed a trespass conviction and illegal sentence, and held that a prior acquittal barred retrial on the same facts.
The prosecution was barred from instituting Criminal Case No. 125 of 2015 after the dismissal for want of prosecution in Criminal Case No. 26 of 2015, as the dismissal order was not reversed or set aside. All subsequent proceedings and convictions are a nullity under section 137 of the CPA and the principle of autrefois acquit.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania upheld an armed robbery conviction, rejected autrefois acquit, and set aside firearms and ammunition convictions as unlawful.
The trial magistrate erred by acquitting the accused on the basis of autrefois acquit without any plea or proof from the accused, thus the acquittal was irregular and must be set aside.
Source excerpt
The trial magistrate erred by acquitting the accused on the basis of autrefois acquit without any proof or plea to that effect. The order was made without reference to any prior charge or acquittal, contrary to established legal principles.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed the prosecution appeal, holding that the magistrate wrongly acquitted the accused on autrefois acquit without proof or a proper plea.
Second appeal from an armed robbery conviction. The Court rejected the autrefois acquit plea, upheld the evidence and confession, and dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania held that issue estoppel applies in criminal cases and barred the prosecution from relitigating possession of a rifle already decided.
Failure to bring the appellant before the trial magistrate after conviction and sentence in absentia, as required by Section 226(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, denied the appellant his fundamental right to be heard and vitiated the subsequent proceedings.
Source excerpt
Explore more
