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 Mwanza set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution and restored the land appeal, finding sufficient cause, curable service defects, and no irremediable prejudice.
The second, third, and fourth respondents were not afforded the right to be heard at trial, violating the principle of natural justice and rendering the trial court's proceedings and judgment a nullity; the first appellate court was correct in quashing the proceedings and judgment.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal after finding the appellant was denied legal representation, quashing the conviction and ordering retrial.
The trial magistrate correctly applied section 228(4) of the CPA when the appellants refused to plead due to absence of their advocates, and there was no violation of the right to be heard. The prosecution was ready to proceed with witnesses at the appropriate stage, and there was no abuse of power by the DPP in re-arresting and re-charging the appellants. The alleged extraneous matters in the trial court's ruling were judicial comments and not the basis of the decision. All grounds of appeal lack merit.
Source excerpt
The General Court Martial lacked jurisdiction to try the appellant for an offence under the National Security Act, 1970 without the mandatory written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The proceedings and resultant judgment were null and void and must be set aside. In the interests of justice, a retrial (trial de novo) is ordered.
Source excerpt
The bail conditions set by the Dodoma Resident Magistrate Court are fair, manageable, and justified by the seriousness of the offences. Varying the conditions for the applicant alone would violate the principle of equality before the law and constitute discrimination among co-accused. No solid grounds were presented to warrant the exercise of the High Court's discretion to vary the bail terms.
Source excerpt
The act of fighting was not within the scope of employment for grazing cattle and is an independent act; vicarious liability does not attach. The district court breached the right to be heard and execution procedures, rendering its decisions invalid.
Source excerpt
The adjournments dated 13.1.2025 and 17.1.2025 in bail proceedings were unjustifiable in terms of span and reasons, violating the applicant's right to timely justice. The High Court has jurisdiction to revise such proceedings even absent a final decision, and directs expeditious determination of bail objections.
Source excerpt
Applicants are entitled to bail for the offence of manslaughter as it is bailable, they previously complied with bail conditions, and the law and precedents support granting bail with appropriate conditions.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to establish an arguable case because he did not provide the alleged resignation letter or sufficient proof of its effectiveness. Without this critical document, the court could not determine whether there was a genuine and justiciable issue warranting judicial intervention. Judicial review is discretionary and requires clear, sufficient grounds, which were not met in this application.
Source excerpt
Explore more
