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 Tanga allowed a land appeal, expunged Exhibit R1, set aside the tribunal decision, and declared the appellant the lawful owner.
The suit is incompetent for want of a board resolution authorizing its institution as required by section 147 of the Companies Act and established case law; the court has no power to waive this statutory requirement, and the plaintiff failed to exhaust remedies under section 137 of the Companies Act.
Source excerpt
The trial court erred in lifting the corporate veil without sufficient evidence of fraud, sham, or misuse of corporate structure; respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the 1st appellant's lack of assets; improper design alone is not a valid ground for veil lifting; liability cannot be imposed solely on one director without proper justification.
Source excerpt
The High Court partially allowed a civil appeal, expunged a collectively admitted exhibit, and reduced the compensation dispute to two proven unreturned items: a television and goat meat.
The High Court dismissed Access Bank’s land appeal, upholding the finding that the first respondent owned the property and that the alleged mortgage was not proved.
The High Court certified two points of law for the Court of Appeal on the civil standard and burden of proof under the Evidence Act in a Primary Court-originating dispute.
The Court of Appeal quashed a murder conviction, finding no reliable visual identification, no proved ownership of the motorcycle, and no safe circumstantial case.
Trial court erred by awarding refund, compensation, and punitive damages not pleaded or proved; respondent defaulted on loan, appellant entitled to recover outstanding balance and penal interest; counterclaim dismissal was improper; insufficient evidence to support repair or replacement orders for vehicle.
Source excerpt
Defence counsel cannot read a prosecution witness's prior statement during cross-examination without first seeking and obtaining leave of the court, as required by section 164(1) of the Evidence Act. The procedure in Lilian Jesus Fortes v. Republic does not override this statutory requirement.
Source excerpt
High Court granted extension of time to seek revision, finding a visible illegality in the interest award and ordering reconstruction of the missing trial record.
Explore more
