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 struck out the suit for failure to comply with the mandatory 90-day notice requirement before suing the Government under section 6(2).
The suit is time barred as the cause of action accrued in 2021 and the suit was filed in 2024, exceeding the 12-month limitation period for compensation claims against the government as established by binding Court of Appeal precedent.
Source excerpt
Failure to properly serve and prove service of the ninety-day notice as required by section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act deprives the Court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit; the suit must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The High Court held Petronas Energy liable for damage to 11 jersey barriers and ordered it to pay Tshs. 33,930,000, plus 12% interest and costs.
High Court ruling on a preliminary objection: the claim was not time-barred, but it was struck out for failure to serve the mandatory 90-day statutory notice.
High Court of Tanzania held the police driver and Attorney General vicariously liable for a road accident, awarding the plaintiff Tshs. 25 million in general damages.
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s ninety-day notice to sue the Government was sufficient, despite a different damages figure, and overruled the preliminary objection.
The 1st Defendant, a police officer, assaulted the Plaintiff while performing his official duties, causing serious injury. The 2nd Defendant, as employer, is vicariously liable for the tort committed in the course of employment. The Plaintiff is entitled to general damages for pain, suffering, and permanent disability.
Source excerpt
High Court dismissed TANROADS’ revision application, holding that interlocutory rulings on a preliminary objection are not revisable under section 43 of the Magistrates Courts Act.
The application for revision was incompetent as the law prohibits revision against interlocutory orders unless they finally determine the suit, and the trial court's overruling of the preliminary objection did not constitute an error on the face of the record.
Source excerpt
Explore more
