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 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 respondent had reasonable and probable cause to report the alleged threat to the police, fulfilling a statutory duty under section 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act; the subsequent prosecution was initiated by the police, not the respondent, and there was no evidence of malice. The trial court's decision was correct and the appeal lacks merit.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania dismissed a malicious prosecution claim by security guards, holding that the report to police was made on reasonable and probable cause without malice.
The respondent failed to prove absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice on the part of the appellant; special damages were not strictly proved; therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove that the restraint was unlawful or malicious. The respondents had reasonable and probable cause to report the appellant to the police, and the appellant did not establish malice. Therefore, the elements of false imprisonment were not met, and the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants had reasonable and probable cause to report the incident and were not shown to have acted with malice.
The court found that the respondent had reasonable and probable cause to suspect the appellant and report the matter to the police, and that the prosecution was not actuated by malice. The respondent's suspicion was bona fide given the circumstances, and the appellant failed to prove the elements required for malicious prosecution.
Source excerpt
The court held that the respondent had reasonable and probable cause to suspect the appellant and set the law in motion, and that the prosecution was not actuated by malice. The appellant failed to prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause or malice, and the respondent's suspicion was found to be bonafide under the circumstances.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an appeal in a malicious prosecution claim, holding that the appellant failed to prove malice or lack of reasonable and probable cause.
The appellant was actively instrumental in setting the law in motion and thus qualified as a prosecutor. However, the respondent's own plea for leniency and the circumstances indicated that the appellant had reasonable and probable cause to report the matter to the police, and there was no sufficient evidence of malice. Since both malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause must unite for liability in malicious prosecution, the respondent was not entitled to damages.
Source excerpt
Explore more
