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 Sumbawanga dismissed the plaint as time-barred, holding that limitation goes to jurisdiction and requires dismissal, not striking out.
The suit was struck out for failure to comply with section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, as plaintiffs neither served nor sent the required notice to the Attorney General, and this court follows its own precedents on mandatory compliance.
Source excerpt
The application for registration and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award was filed after the expiry of the six-month limitation period prescribed by law. Withdrawal of the earlier application with liberty to refile did not stop the limitation period from running, as per Order XXIII Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 21(2) of the Law of Limitation Act does not apply because the withdrawal was not due to a defect of jurisdiction or similar cause. Therefore, the application is time-barred and must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
The application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was filed beyond the 60 days limitation period prescribed by Item 21 of Part III of the Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act for applications under the Arbitration Act; therefore, the application is time barred and must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
The High Court overruled a preliminary objection that an application to file an arbitral award was time-barred, holding that limitation questions required evidence.
Applicants were not notified of the date of delivery of the ex parte judgment as required by Order XX Rule 1 CPC. This failure constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time to apply to set aside the judgment.
Source excerpt
The High Court granted the Attorney General’s application to extend time to file and register an ICSID award, finding a sufficient explanation for the delay.
The application for extension of time cannot be granted because the previous application for registration of the same arbitral award was dismissed as time-barred, making the matter res judicata and rendering the court functus officio. The court lacks jurisdiction to grant the extension, and even on merits, the applicant failed to satisfactorily explain the two-month delay after the dismissal of the previous application.
Source excerpt
The application for registration of the arbitral award was filed out of time, as the applicable limitation period is six months from the date of the award under item 18 of part III of the Law of Limitation Act. The award was filed four years after it was made, and no application for extension of time was made. Therefore, the application must be dismissed for being time-barred.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an application to re-file a civil suit out of time, holding it lacked jurisdiction and that extension of time had to be sought from the Minister.
Explore more
