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 application was struck out because the applicant failed to attach the impugned decision, which is a mandatory precondition for leave to apply for judicial review. Without the decision, the court could not determine if there was a prima facie case or sufficient interest.
Source excerpt
The 2nd Respondent acted ultra vires by dismissing the appeal for being filed out of time instead of rejecting it as required by Rule 17(1) of the Public Procurement Appeals Rules, 2014. Dismissal precludes the Applicant from refiling, whereas rejection would have allowed rectification. The decision was therefore irrational and contrary to procedural law, warranting its quashing and setting aside.
Source excerpt
There exists a contentious issue regarding whether time limitation constitutes a prohibited technicality before the Public Procurement Appeals Authority, and this controversy merits judicial review. Leave is granted as the application meets the threshold for arguable case.
Source excerpt
The High Court of Tanzania granted leave to challenge a procurement appeals decision that nullified an award to SICPA SA, finding the applicant met the low threshold for judicial review.
The application was dismissed because the applicants introduced new facts beyond those for which leave was granted, violating mandatory procedural rules. The evidence established that the 3rd Respondent became aware of the fraud on 30/03/2023, making the complaint timely. No denial of fair hearing or misallocation of burden of proof was found. The debarment penalty was properly imposed jointly due to the nature of the joint venture and power of attorney arrangement.
Source excerpt
The judicial review application was timely as leave was sought within 14 days, but the applicant failed to establish any ultra vires action or breach of natural justice by PPAA. The applicant was ineligible for the tender due to nondisclosure of a summary penalty order constituting a final judgment within the relevant period, as required by tender documents and procurement regulations.
Source excerpt
The application was filed out of time as court fees were paid three days after the statutory period, rendering the filing invalid under section 101(1) of the Public Procurement Act. The supporting affidavit was defective for containing unverified paragraphs and extraneous material. Prayers based on non-final decisions are not tenable. The remedy for an application filed out of time is dismissal under section 3 of the Law of Limitation Act.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a procurement appeal decision, holding the applicant had not exhausted administrative remedies and had filed prematurely.
The Court of Appeal struck out a revision application, holding that refusal of leave to seek judicial review is appealable with leave, not revisable.
The applicant failed to demonstrate a serious question or triable issue likely to be decided in her favour; no prima facie case established for leave to apply for prerogative orders.
Source excerpt
Explore more
