Browsing Evidence by Issue Date
Now showing items 1-12 of 12
-
DIRECTOR MOSHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. JOHN AMBROSE MWASE. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2017
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, ARUSHA., 2019-04-10)i)It is a settled law that in civil cases who alleges must proof which is a basis of Section 110 of the Evidence Act, [Cap 6 R. E 2019]. The Court cited with approval the holding in the case of Anthony M. Masanga V. Penina ... -
AIRTEL TANZANIA LIMITED VS. OSE POWER SOLUTIONS LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2017
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2021-12-13)(i) It is a settled position that, upon filing an amended plaint, the original plaint ceases to exist. The same applies when a Written Statement of Defence is filed inferring the end of the original. (ii)Suffice to say, ... -
AIRTEL TANZANIA LIMITED VS. OSE POWER SOLUTIONS LIMITED. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2017
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2021-12-13)Held (i). It is a settled position that, upon filing amended plaint, the original plaint ceases to exist. The same applies when Written Statement of Defence is filed inferring the end of the original. (ii) Suffice to ... -
KARIAKOO AUCTION MART VS. MASHAKA DYANGA AND 7 OTHERS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 234 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-06-27)i)Evidence may be taken in the appellate stage upon the set prerequisites that one, there is an existence of an appeal before this court, two, the appeal must stem from High Court exercising its original jurisdiction and ... -
LEONARD DOMINIC RUBUYE t/a RUBUYE AGROCHEMICAL SUPPLIES VS. YARA TANZANIA LIMITED. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2018
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-07-11)Held (i). It is a well settled position that the onus of proving existence or non-existence of any fact lies on the party asserting its existence or non-existence and in civil cases proof is at balance of probabilities ... -
CAPITAL DRILLING (T) LIMITED VS. ALEX BARTHAZALI KABENDERA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2019
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA., 2022-07-13)Clearly, taking an oath before testifying is a mandatory requirement that cannot be glossed over and its omission vitiates the proceedings since it renders the evidence invalid. -
SNV NETHERLANDS DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION TANZANIA VS. ANNE FIDELIS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 198 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA., 2022-07-13)It is mandatory for every witness who is competent to take oath or affirmation before the reception of his or her evidence in the trial court including the CMA. If such evidence is received without oath or affirmation, it ... -
NORTH MARA GOLD MINE LIMITED VS. EMMANUEL MWITA MAGESA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2019.
(2022-07-18)HELD (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 ... -
MHUBIRI ROGEGA MONG'ATEKO VS. MAK MEDICS LTD CIVIL APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA., 2022-07-19)(i) Upon admitting the liability with common understanding to repay the same, itcannot be said that such termination was un fair. (ii) It is trite law that, a document which is not admitted in evidence cannot be treated ... -
BULYANHULU GOLD MINES LIMITED VS. KENETH ROBERT FOURIE. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2021
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, SHINYANGA., 2022-07-22)HELD The court was on the view that it is appropriate, to lay ground as for this Court's position generally, on issues of taking evidence from witnesses in all courts. Before taking evidence from a witness in a court of ... -
LAWRENCE MAGESA t/a JOPEN PHARMACY VS. FATUMA OMARY. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-10-05)Held:- (i) We wish to preface our discussion by observing that this being a first appeal, we are entitled to review the evidence on record to satisfy ourselves whether the findings by the trial court were correct. This ... -
BYTRADE TANZANIA LIMITED VS. ASSENGA AGROVET COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2018.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MOSHI., 2022-10-07)Held: (i) The true principle of promissory estoppel is where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a dear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship ...
