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 applicant was not sufficiently notified of the review and appeal proceedings, violating mandatory procurement regulations and the right to be heard. The resulting decisions are nullities and must be quashed.
Source excerpt
The contract was a framework contract requiring execution through purchase orders; no purchase order was issued, so no breach occurred and plaintiff is not entitled to damages.
Source excerpt
The application is not barred by res judicata as the prior case involved different parties and issues, and was not conclusive of the present matter. The applicant has locus standi, filed within time, and established an arguable case. Certiorari is a sufficient remedy at this stage. Leave is therefore granted.
Source excerpt
All grounds for setting aside the arbitral award and additional award fail: violation of public policy was not established, jurisdictional objections were waived by participation and not timely raised, arbitrator acted within scope of broad-form arbitration agreement, alleged errors regarding forged documents and deduction of TZS 80,000,000/= are not grounds for setting aside or remittance as they go to merits and not serious irregularity or jurisdiction. Both petition and cross petition are dismissed.
Source excerpt
Affidavits in support of applications for leave for judicial review must only verify facts stated in the statement and not introduce new facts; paragraphs introducing new facts are expunged. Despite expunging, the remaining material supports the grant of leave as legal requirements are met.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a judicial review application challenging a procurement appeals decision, holding the appeal was filed out of time and mandamus was not proved.
High Court petition challenging Tanzania’s IGA with Dubai over public participation, sovereignty, procurement, and contract-law objections was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal held that unapproved contract variations altered the scope of the work and required Tender Board approval, so the arbitral award was illegal and could be set aside.
The High Court set aside an arbitral award for serious irregularity, holding that the award condoned unapproved variations contrary to contract and public procurement law.
The appellant was not a public servant at the time of the proceedings, so administrative or civil remedies were not available. The trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the criminal matter, and the preliminary objection had no merit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
