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
Applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case, ongoing or imminent threat to property, or irreparable loss not compensable by damages. Respondents' evidence was uncontroverted. Public interest in use of the road outweighs applicant's individual interest. All conditions for mareva injunction were not met.
Source excerpt
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction pending institution of a suit, even where the statutory notice to sue has not matured, provided the applicant undertakes to issue and serve such notice within a specified period and to institute the suit after expiry of the notice. The urgency and risk of irreparable loss to the applicant justify the grant of the injunction, subject to compliance with statutory notice requirements and proof thereof.
Source excerpt
Applicant established triable issues regarding ownership, demonstrated risk of irreparable loss if properties are disposed, and balance of convenience favored preserving the properties pending suit. Injunction granted only as to sale, disposal, alienation, and leasing of specified properties; other reliefs denied due to insufficient evidence.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed applications for injunctions and related interim orders in a dispute over constitutional amendments, asset disposal, and NGO governance.
The applicant, a cooperative society, has not yet obtained legal standing to sue due to the requirement for compulsory arbitration under Regulation 83 of the Cooperative Societies Regulations, 2015. However, there is a genuine dispute and risk that the respondents, whose principal officers are foreigners, may remove or dissipate assets, potentially frustrating any future judgment. The conditions for a Mareva injunction are met: there is a cause of action, a need for court intervention, and the balance of convenience favors the applicant. Therefore, the application for Mareva injunction is gra…
Source excerpt
The appellant, by his oral and written representations, allowed the respondents to occupy and develop the suit property without limitation, and the respondents acted to their detriment by constructing a permanent building and occupying the property for many years. It would be inequitable for the appellant to withdraw his representation and assert title after such a long period. The doctrine of proprietary estoppel applies, making the respondents the lawful owners. The trial court's order compelling the appellant to sign transfer documents was set aside as unnecessary, since the judgment itsel…
Source excerpt
By presenting and having postdated cheques honored, the respondent created an implied overdraft contract with the appellant bank and was duty-bound to repay the amounts advanced. Failure to do so resulted in unjust enrichment, warranting restitution.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the defendant acquiesced to the plaintiffs’ construction and occupation of the plot, ordered transfer of title to them, and dismissed the counterclaim.
Land Division ruling partly granted limited access to property for document collection, upheld in part after rejecting several preliminary objections.
Court of Appeal set aside a High Court refusal of temporary injunction, holding the judge wrongly demanded proof of fraud instead of a prima facie case.
Explore more
