Court of Appeal of Tanzania: Recent submissions
Now showing items 1-20 of 558
-
STATE OIL TANZANIA LIMITED VS. EQUITY BANK TANZANIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 426/16 OF 2022
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-11-15)Any instrument executed outside Mainland Tanzania in relation to any property in Tanzania is chargeable with stamp. (ii) Every chargeable instrument executed outside Mainland Tanzania shall be stamped within thirty days ... -
ALEX MSAMA MWITA VS. EMMANUEL NASUZWA KITUNDU AND ANOTHER CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 538/17 OF 2020.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-10-20): (i) The applicant did not comply with the mandatory requirement of the law which requires service of the notice of motion to be done within fourteen (14) days from the date of filing and this omission as the court have ... -
NORTH MARA GOLD MINE LIMITED VS. EMMANUEL MWITA MAGESA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA., 2022-07-18)(i) An appellate court, like this one, will only interfere with concurrent findings of fact only if it is satisfied that "they are on the face of it unreasonable or perverse" leading to a miscarriage of justice, or there ... -
MLIMANI HOLDINGS LIMITED VS. THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2021.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-07-15)(i) The service fees the appellant paid to MDS Architecture did not constitute part of the business profits of the payee and thus liable to 13 withholding tax in Tanzania. Consequently, as the appellant did not remit the ... -
STATE OIL TANZANIA LIMITED VS. EQUITY BANK TANZANIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 426/16 OF 2022
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-11-15)Any instrument executed outside Mainland Tanzania in relation to any property in Tanzania is chargeable with stamp. (ii) Every chargeable instrument executed outside Mainland Tanzania shall be stamped within thirty days ... -
COMMISSIONER GENERAL (TRA) VS. CRJE ESTATE LIMITED. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2021
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-10-06)(i) we are of the view that, in as long as it deals with a certificate of incentive under section 17 of the TIA, the authority is relevant in the instant case. Therefore, just like the Tribunal, we hold that, the certificate ... -
M/S ROKO INVESTMENT CO. LTD VS.TANZANIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD CIVIL APPEAL NO. 327 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, TABORA., 2022-11-09)(i) First and foremost, it is our observation that, the suit by the Respondent which is for the recovery of electricity charges amounting to TZS. 84,160,612.93, was properly brought under summary procedure. Under Order ... -
COMMISSIONER GENERAL (TRA) VS. CRJE ESTATE LIMITED. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2021
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-10-06)(i) we are of the view that, in as long as it deals with a certificate of incentive under section 17 of the TIA, the authority is relevant in the instant case. Therefore, just like the Tribunal, we hold that, the certificate ... -
ABBAS ALLY ATHUMAN BANTULAKI AND ANOTHER VS. KELVIN VICTOR MAHITY (Administrator of the Estate of the late PETER WALCHER)CIVIL APPEAL NO. 385 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-08-16)Held; i. Administrator’s actions are bound to be for the benefit of the rightful heirs and are precluded from embezzling in any way misapplying the deceased estate. ii. A requirement to appoint an administrator of the ... -
JOHN BARNABA MACHERA VS. NORTH MARA GOLD MINE LIMITED. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 204 OF 2019
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-07-19)HELD i) it is on record that two points of preliminary objection over time limitation were raised in alternative before the predecessor Judge and the decision thereof was delivered. The first preliminary objection was ... -
JACKLINE HAMSON GHIKAS VS. MLLATIE RICHIE ASSEY. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 656/01 OF 2021.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-07-15)HELD i) a preliminary objection must satisfy three conditions viz; one, the point of law raised must either be pleaded or must arise as a clear implication from the proceedings; two, that it must be a pure point of law ... -
PATRICK WILLIAM MAGUBO VS. LILIAN PETER KITALI. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA.THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA., 2022-07-18)HELD (i) The court found that the respondent's petition for divorce before the trial court was incompetent for failure to comply with the requirement of section 101 and 106 (2) of the Marriage Act. It is the requirement ... -
NACKY ESTHER NYANGE VS. MIHAYO MARI JAN I WILMORE. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2019
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-08-11)Held; (i) Section 125(2) (a), (b) of the Law of Marriage Act (Cap.29 R.E 2019) articulates that in deciding in whose custody an infant should be placed the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the infant. ( ... -
JOHN BARNABA MACHERA VS. NORTH MARA GOLD MINE LIMITED. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 204 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA., 2022-07-19)HELD i) it is on record that two points of preliminary objection over time limitation were raised in alternative before the predecessor Judge and the decision thereof was delivered. The first preliminary objection was ... -
FORTUNATUS LWANYANTIKA MASHA AND ANOTHERS VS. CLAVER MOTORS LIMITED.CIVIL APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA., 2022-07-18)HELD i) he prescribed time on a suit for recovery of land is twelve (12) years from the date when the cause of action accrued. ii) It is on record that the appellants' suit was filed on 28th April, 2017 after lapse of ... -
METHUSELA ENOKA VS. NATIONAL MICROFINANCE BANK LTD. CIVIL APPEAL No. 266 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA., 2022-07-18)Held: (i)Appeal is time barred but the appellantis entitled to exclusion under section 19(2) (3) of the Act without necessarily attaching any document to the memorandum of appeal. (ii)The exclusion is automatic as long ... -
COMPUTER LOGIX LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. ZAMZAM SHADADIISSA AND SEIF ISSA FIKIRINI (Administrators of the estate of the late FIKIRINI ISSA KOCHO. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 538/01 OF 2018.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-07-29)HELD 4.Exclusion of time spent in preparation and supply of a certified copy of proceedings apply only to an appeal, not an application. Thus, the provision of Rule 90(1) can not be invoked where the applicant fails to ... -
TANGANYIKA WATTLE COMPANY LIMITED VS. DOLPHIN BAY CHEMICALS (PTY) LTD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 521/16 OF 2020.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-08-16)(i) When all requisite conditions are met the Court has to grant the stay of execution. (ii) The application which has not contested, has merit -
COMPUTER LOGIX LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. ZAMZAM SHADADIISSA AND SEIF ISSA FIKIRINI (Administrators of the estate of the late FIKIRINI ISSA KOCHO. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 538/01 OF 2018.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-07-29)1. Exclusion of time spent in preparation and supply of a certified copy of proceedings apply only to an appeal, not an application. Thus, the provision of Rule 90(1) can not be invoked where the applicant fails to lodge ... -
COSTANTINE VICTOR JOHN VS. MUHIMBILI NATIONAL HOSPITAL. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 188/01 OF 2021.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-10-19)The said grounds one, two and four are not grounds of review envisaged under Rule 66 (1) (a) of the Rules as they require the Court to re-asses the evidence. The raised grounds do not depict an obvious or patent error ...
