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 trial court lacked jurisdiction due to defective consent and certificate; evidence was insufficient to prove unlawful possession of government trophy; retrial would not serve justice as it would allow prosecution to fill evidentiary gaps.
Source excerpt
The trial court lacked jurisdiction due to defective consent and certificate under the EOCCA, rendering the proceedings, conviction, and sentence a nullity. Given sufficient evidence on record, a retrial is ordered.
Source excerpt
The trial court lacked jurisdiction due to defective consent issued by an unauthorized officer, rendering the proceedings, conviction, and sentence a nullity. There is sufficient evidence to warrant a retrial without causing injustice to the accused.
Source excerpt
The High Court quashed a criminal conviction for economic offences because the DPP consent was defective, but ordered a retrial on fairness grounds.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction due to defective consent and certificate from the DPP, which did not cite all relevant legal provisions. This defect rendered the proceedings and judgment a nullity, requiring the conviction and sentence to be set aside and a retrial ordered.
Source excerpt
The trial proceedings were incurably defective due to the absence of proper consent citing section 86 of the Wildlife Conservation Act, thus the conviction and sentence are nullified and the appellants are to be released.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed the appeal on the first count, holding that defective DPP consent and a missing certificate of transfer deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.
The trial court proceedings and judgment are a nullity as the consent did not cite the statutory provisions creating the offence, thus the court lacked jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
Omission to cite relevant statutory provisions in consent and certificate rendered trial and appellate proceedings a nullity; retrial not ordered due to evidentiary and legal defects.
Source excerpt
The proceedings in the trial and first appellate courts were a nullity due to incurably defective consent and certificate, which failed to cite the relevant charging section for the third and fourth counts, depriving the courts of jurisdiction. Additionally, the offences of unlawful entry and possession of weapons were not established under the law at the material time, and the destruction of exhibits was procedurally flawed. A retrial was not ordered as it would not serve justice.
Source excerpt
Explore more
