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
Partial non-compliance with section 210(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, specifically the omission to sign after recording the testimonies of certain witnesses, rendered the trial proceedings incurably defective and a nullity, necessitating the quashing of conviction and sentence.
Source excerpt
The search and seizure were conducted without a search warrant or lawful authority, rendering the process illegal and the evidence inadmissible. With the expunged evidence, the prosecution's case failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.
Source excerpt
The convictions were quashed because the cautioned statements were recorded outside the statutory time limit, were inadmissible, and were not corroborated by independent evidence. The prosecution's failure to call material witnesses further undermined the case, leaving no credible evidence to support the convictions.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal after finding the trial court had not formally convicted the accused before sentencing, making the judgment and sentence a nullity.
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against an armed robbery conviction, finding the visual identification evidence unsafe and setting aside the 30-year sentences.
The trial court failed to comply with section 127(2) of the Evidence Act by not recording the victim's promise to tell the truth and not to tell lies, rendering her evidence inadmissible and leaving no evidence to sustain the conviction.
Source excerpt
Failure to record each assessor's opinion separately was an irregularity but did not prejudice the appellant or occasion a miscarriage of justice; the caution statement was properly admitted as it was given voluntarily. The conviction and sentence are upheld.
Source excerpt
The trial court was justified in finding that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a principal-agent relationship, an essential ingredient of the offence of corruption. The use of 'discharge' instead of 'acquittal' was a procedural error, not affecting the substance, and was curable by substituting 'acquittal' for 'discharge'. The appeal lacked merit as no prima facie case was established against the respondent.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a second appeal, holding that the District Land and Housing Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was criminal, not a land case.
The appeal was dismissed because the evidence overwhelmingly established that the appellant's animals destroyed the respondent's crops, the trial and first appellate courts properly evaluated the evidence, and the compensation and fine orders were legally justified.
Source excerpt
Explore more
