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 was not afforded the right to be heard after conviction in absentia, violating section 226(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution, thereby vitiating the proceedings and conviction.
Source excerpt
The trial court failed to exercise its discretion judiciously under section 226(2) of the CPA by not accepting the appellant's illness as good cause for his absence and not setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed in absentia; the proceedings, conviction, and sentence are quashed and a retrial is ordered.
Source excerpt
The trial court failed to exercise its discretion judiciously under section 226(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act by not properly considering the appellant's explanation for absence, which was supported by medical evidence. The appellant was denied the right to be heard, and the conviction and sentence must be set aside.
Source excerpt
The High Court nullified trial proceedings conducted in absentia and ordered a retrial after finding the appellant was not brought before a magistrate after arrest.
The trial court did not comply with section 226(2) of the CPA by failing to consider the appellant's explanation for her absence and make a determination; this non-compliance vitiates the proceedings conducted in her absence.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal set aside the lower court decisions after finding the appellant was denied a fair hearing when the trial proceeded improperly in his absence.
The trial was a nullity because the appellant was not called upon to plead to the amended charge after DPP consent and certificate were issued, and was not afforded the right to be heard under section 226(2) of the CPA after conviction in absentia. These procedural irregularities vitiated the entire proceedings.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a criminal appeal as incompetent because the appellant had been convicted in absentia and should first have applied to set aside the ex parte judgment.
The conviction and sentences were quashed because the appellants were not afforded the right to be heard upon re-arrest after conviction in absentia, and the prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to procedural irregularities in the handling of exhibits and lack of evidence linking the weapons to the alleged crime.
Source excerpt
The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the victim, causing grievous harm, and that the identification evidence was credible and reliable due to the circumstances of the incident and the familiarity of the witnesses with the accused.
Source excerpt
Explore more
