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 Dongobesh Primary Court had no jurisdiction to try the claim for malicious prosecution as it was a common law tort, not a customary law tort. The District Court erred in assuming jurisdiction without proper inquiry. The appellant's failure to properly argue his ground of appeal meant there was no valid submission before the High Court.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the Primary Court lacked jurisdiction over a common-law malicious prosecution claim and quashed both lower-court decisions.
The trial court erred in striking out the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction because, although the specific damages claimed fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the primary court, the nature of the claim was a common law tort (malicious prosecution) over which the primary court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the district court was the proper forum to hear the matter.
Source excerpt
The High Court at Mwanza entered a consent judgment after the parties settled a malicious prosecution claim for TZS 40 million, payable in two installments.
The appellant failed to prove that the respondent acted without reasonable and probable cause or with malice in instituting criminal proceedings; material witnesses were not called and corroborative evidence was lacking, justifying the trial court's dismissal of the suit for malicious prosecution.
Source excerpt
The primary court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the tort of malicious prosecution as there are no established and accepted rules regarding such tort under the Haya tribe's customary law, and the matter is not within the scope of primary court jurisdiction under the Magistrates' Courts Act. All proceedings and judgments of the lower courts are nullities.
Source excerpt
High Court appeal in a malicious prosecution claim. The court held the respondents had not proved malice or lack of reasonable and probable cause and set aside the damages award.
The appellant failed to prove the respondent acted without reasonable and probable cause or with malice; acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution. The trial court properly evaluated evidence and applied the correct legal principles.
Source excerpt
The appellant was entitled to appeal against the ex parte decree without first applying to set it aside. The respondents failed to prove three essential elements of malicious prosecution: lack of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and that the criminal proceedings terminated in their favour. Therefore, the trial court erred in awarding damages for malicious prosecution.
Source excerpt
The respondent failed to prove that the prosecution was instituted without reasonable and probable cause or with malice. The trial court erred in awarding special damages and medical expenses not pleaded in the plaint. The appeal is allowed, and the trial court's decision is quashed and set aside.
Source excerpt
Explore more
