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 granted witness-protection orders in a terrorism-related matter, allowing pseudonyms, redactions, and in camera proceedings, but refused video testimony at this stage.
Subordinate courts have no jurisdiction to deliberate and decide legal matters during committal proceedings for offences triable by the High Court; such matters must be reserved for the High Court. The High Court erred in directing the subordinate court to determine issues beyond its powers.
Source excerpt
Objections on relevance and authenticity of certificate of seizure are not grounds for rejecting admissibility at this stage; prior ruling on relevance binds parties and bars re-raising similar objections; authenticity and content issues are reserved for final determination; certificate of seizure is admitted as exhibit.
Source excerpt
There was no tangible evidence that the DPP abused his powers or acted to defeat justice; the withdrawal and refiling of the case was justified to correct procedural errors. However, the charges under the Prevention of Terrorism Act were defective as the particulars did not disclose the essential elements, specifically the requirement for a 'meeting' of three or more persons. Counts 2, 3, and 4 were struck out, leaving the DPP to pursue the remaining count in the appropriate court.
Source excerpt
The DPP had good reasons pertaining to sound administration of justice for entering Nolle Prosequi due to procedural errors, and there was no tangible evidence of abuse of power or forum shopping. However, counts under the Prevention of Terrorism Act lacked sufficient particulars and failed to meet statutory requirements, thus must be struck out.
Source excerpt
There was no tangible evidence that the DPP abused his powers in entering Nolle Prosequi; the action was justified by the need to correct procedural errors. However, counts 2, 3, and 4 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act were improperly constituted and are struck out.
Source excerpt
Explore more
