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 reference challenging taxation, upholding the 3% instruction fee, rejecting double-taxation objections, and affirming a separate Tshs.130,000 award.
The suit was not properly instituted as required by Rule 4(1) of the Media Services (Defamation Proceedings) Rules, rendering the trial court's proceedings and orders a nullity.
Source excerpt
The trial court erred by relying on documentary evidence (Exhibit P8) whose authenticity was challenged without resolving the objection or providing reasons for its admissibility. This procedural irregularity is fatal and renders the judgment a nullity. The proper course is to quash the judgment and remit the matter for a fresh judgment addressing the admissibility of the challenged evidence.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a defamation appeal, held the words were fair comment in an official miners’ meeting, and set aside TZS 10 million in damages.
The Respondents published false and unsubstantiated statements about the Petitioner, which were defamatory, intentional, malicious, and not justified or privileged. The Respondents failed to provide evidence supporting the truth of their allegations or to offer the Petitioner a right of reply. The publications caused significant harm to the Petitioner's reputation and emotional well-being, warranting substantial compensatory and general damages, an apology, and an injunction against further defamatory publications.
Source excerpt
The preliminary objections raised by both parties do not meet the threshold of pure points of law, as they require ascertainment of facts or evidence, and the petition is not governed by the Media Service Act, 2016 since the alleged defamation was through social media, not print media.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a defamation appeal, holding that the appellant had justified most statements as true, fair comment, and privileged, so damages fell away.
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to prove the first respondent uttered the defamatory words, but found the other respondents liable for publication.
High Court revision dismissed after the court upheld rejection of an electronically sourced letter for non-compliance with evidence rules, leaving the defamation claim unproved.
The Court of Appeal rejected Safari Mwazembe’s leave-to-appeal application, holding the proposed fair-trial ground was not raised below and was not arguable.
Explore more
