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 at Mbeya held that a status quo order sought over land was, in substance, a temporary injunction barred against Government entities.
The court held that while a board resolution is required for institution of a suit by a company, there is no legal requirement that such resolution must precede the issuance of the 90 days’ notice to the government. The notice is not the institution of the suit but a procedural step, and the defendants’ acknowledgment of receipt of the notice satisfied the statutory requirement. The preliminary objections did not meet the threshold of pure points of law and were devoid of merit.
Source excerpt
Failure to join necessary parties, specifically the Conservation Commissioner, Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA), and non-compliance with statutory notice requirements under section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, renders the application incompetent. Misjoinder and non-joinder rules do not cure omission of necessary parties. Applicants lack locus standi as only the Village Council can represent village land. Application is struck out.
Source excerpt
The suit is unmaintainable for failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of serving a 90 days' notice to all relevant government entities and for failure to join the District Executive Director as a necessary party; the verification of the plaint is incurably defective, and these defects are not curable by the Oxygen principle or provisions on misjoinder/nonjoinder of parties.
Source excerpt
The suit was struck out because the plaintiff failed to provide proof that the 90 days notice of intention to sue was served on the Attorney General and the Solicitor General as required by section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act.
Source excerpt
The applicants failed to prove that they obtained proper consent from the 86 persons they sought to represent, as the minutes were unsigned and thus unauthenticated. Additionally, only the applicants themselves, not the 86 others, issued a valid 90 days’ notice of intention to sue as required by law. Therefore, leave to file a representative suit cannot be granted as the statutory prerequisites were not met.
Source excerpt
The application is not an abuse of court process as execution has not been completed; the applicant and 4th respondent are distinct legal entities; the applicant is entitled to intervene and seek revision. The preliminary objection lacks merit and is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Failure to join Attorney General as necessary party in proceedings against a government entity constitutes illegality and jurisdictional defect, amounting to sufficient cause for extension of time to file revision.
Source excerpt
Defendants failed to file written submissions on time, amounting to default appearance; preliminary objection is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land suit for failure to serve a proper statutory notice under section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act.
Explore more
