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
Denial of adjournment for newly engaged advocate and proceeding with hearing in absence of appellant's advocate constituted denial of fair hearing and legal representation, rendering the trial defective and conviction a nullity.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the economic crime charges, quashed the conviction, and declined a retrial.
Application for bail is unopposed; statutory requirements for bail are satisfied; bail granted subject to specified conditions.
Source excerpt
The District Court erred in holding that the certificate conferring jurisdiction was issued under the wrong provision. The proper provision for mixed economic and non-economic offences is section 12(4) of EOCA, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Kurwa Limbu @ Musha v. R. The appeal is allowed and the District Court is ordered to proceed with the case from where it ended.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal held the trial court lacked jurisdiction over economic offences because the DPP consent and certificate did not specify the offences.
The Court of Appeal nullified a criminal trial for lack of jurisdiction, upheld challenges to evidence and charge particulars, and ordered the appellants’ release.
The trial court's judgment was fatally defective for failing to specify the offences and legal provisions under which the appellants were convicted and sentenced, contrary to section 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. This defect rendered the judgment invalid, necessitating its nullification and remittal for a fresh judgment.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a bail application for want of jurisdiction, holding that economic-crime bail jurisdiction lies with lower courts where the value is below TZS 300 million.
Applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for four-day delay due to miscommunication regarding supply of proceedings; delay justified and extension of time granted.
Source excerpt
The conviction of the appellants was not supported by sufficient, direct, or reliable circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the appellants' involvement in the offences charged, as the evidence was based on suspicion, hearsay, and inadequate identification. The burden of proof was not discharged, and material witnesses were not called. Therefore, the convictions and sentences cannot stand.
Source excerpt
Explore more
