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 dismissed a medical negligence suit arising from childbirth and later uterine removal, finding no proved breach of duty by the hospital staff.
Plaintiff failed to prove breach of duty of care or professional negligence by defendants; no expert medical evidence or reports from other hospitals were tendered to contradict defendants' testimony or establish improper treatment.
Source excerpt
The proceedings are not intended to inquire into the 1st defendant’s disciplinary conduct but are tortious claims for negligence and damages, which fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court and not the disciplinary council. The preliminary objection is misconceived and without merit.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an appeal over alleged negligence in HIV blood screening, finding the disputed result arose from testing protocols and instruments, not proven negligence.
The High Court held that Muhimbili National Hospital owed a duty of care to provide accurate information, breached it by issuing contradictory reports, and caused harm to the plaintiff.
Appeal over alleged negligent BCG vaccination at a hospital was dismissed. The Court held causation and negligence were not proved on the evidence.
The High Court of Tanzania found medical negligence after mistaken surgery on the wrong patient and awarded damages for lost income, domestic help, and pain and suffering.
High Court appeal in a medical negligence case partly allowed: special damages were quashed, interest reduced, and other damages upheld.
The court found that the second defendant, Dr. Jacob Kamanda, was negligent in leaving a surgical swab in the first plaintiff's abdomen during a caesarean operation, which constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The first defendant, Urambo District Council, was held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employee. The negligence caused permanent disability to the first plaintiff and loss of consortium to the second plaintiff. Special damages were not awarded due to lack of proof, but general damages were granted for pain, suffering, and loss of consortium.
Source excerpt
Explore more
