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 struck out a civil suit after finding the plaintiff had not proved service of the mandatory 90-day notice to the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
The court held that the alleged illegality was in the Deputy Registrar's administrative Letter, not in a decree or order of the court, and thus did not suffice to grant extension of time. The Letter was not reviewable under Order XLII Rule 1 of the CPC, as it was not an order, judgment, or decree. Therefore, even if time was extended, the application for review would not be maintainable.
Source excerpt
The suit is time-barred as it was filed after the aggregate limitation period (original plus permissible extension) expired. The Minister's extension beyond the statutory maximum was ultra vires and ineffectual. Legal disability was not pleaded as a ground for exemption in the Plaint and cannot be raised by submissions. Since limitation goes to jurisdiction, the suit is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The suit is time barred as the cause of action accrued in 2010 and was filed in 2024, exceeding the 6-year limitation period. Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient grounds for exemption from limitation as required by law.
Source excerpt
The only remedy for proceedings instituted beyond the prescribed time limitation is dismissal, not striking out, as mandated by section 3(1) of the Law of Limitation Act and affirmed by the Apex Court.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to account for all days of delay on the ground of sickness, but established sufficient cause for extension of time based on apparent illegalities in the Tribunal’s decision, which are grounds of sufficient importance and apparent on the face of the record. The respondent did not prove prejudice that would outweigh the applicant’s right to challenge the decision.
Source excerpt
High Court commercial ruling striking out Namtumbo District Council’s application for extension of time to appeal, after finding the application incompetent for عدم joinder of the Attorney General.
The High Court held an omnibus application combining extension of time and revision was incompetent, but granted extension of time to seek revision based on alleged illegality.
The High Court dismissed a commercial claim as time barred, holding the cause of action arose in January 2013 and limitation expired in January 2019.
Once an application is dismissed for being time barred under Section 3(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, the court is functus officio and cannot entertain a subsequent application for extension of time in the same matter. Omnibus applications under different laws are not allowed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
