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 a rape appeal, quashing the conviction and sentence after finding the complainant’s failure to name the appellant early undermined her credibility.
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction for armed robbery, upholding visual identification, the caution statement, and the trial court’s treatment of the defence.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding the tribunal was properly constituted and the appellant failed to prove ownership or encroachment.
Second appeal in a loan dispute dismissed after the High Court found the borrower accepted and used the funds, but failed to prove breach or covered loss.
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to questionable credibility of the victim's evidence, particularly her failure to raise an alarm and lack of corroboration regarding the circumstances of the alleged attempted rape.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal by an estate administrator, holding he lacked locus standi and that the evidence supported ownership by the respondent’s late husband.
The trial court had pecuniary jurisdiction as the plaint pleaded a claim of TZS 123,000,000, which is within the court's jurisdiction. The appellant admitted receipt of TZS 20,000,000 for a specific contractual purpose but used it for other activities, constituting breach. The alleged contract defect was not pleaded and did not prevent performance. The respondent proved breach on a balance of probabilities. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The prosecution failed to prove penetration, a necessary element of rape, beyond reasonable doubt; therefore, the conviction cannot stand.
Source excerpt
The conviction for rape was upheld because the victim's evidence was found credible by both lower courts, the variance in date and place was immaterial, and the delay in reporting was reasonably explained. There was no misapprehension of evidence or legal error warranting appellate interference.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove the value of the maize loan beyond his own testimony; the only independent witness (SU3) supported the respondent's version that the contract value was Tshs 180,000. The District Court's finding was correct and is upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
