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
Inclusion of a deceased party after abatement and failure to follow mandatory procedures during locus in quo rendered the trial proceedings, judgment, and orders a nullity, making the appeal incompetent.
Source excerpt
The applicant provided sufficient reasons for the delay, including late appointment as administrator and prompt action upon learning of the abatement order; therefore, the application for extension of time is granted.
Source excerpt
The trial tribunal erred by retaining deceased parties in the proceedings without joinder of legal representatives, rendering the proceedings, judgment, and orders a nullity.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an application to extend time to set aside an abatement order, finding the supporting affidavit lacked proof of the respondent administrator’s appointment.
The Court of Appeal nullified High Court proceedings conducted after the death of a co-appellant without substitution, set aside the judgment, and left the DLHT decision in force.
The suit and counterclaim abated as no application to substitute the legal representative was made within the statutory period after the defendant's death.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld a preliminary objection and struck out a land revision application because it challenged an interlocutory order while the main matter was still pending.
High Court held the district land tribunal proceedings were a nullity because the appeal continued after the appellant’s death without appointing a legal representative.
The applicant's right of appeal was not blocked by judicial process; he prematurely abandoned the appeal route and failed to exhaust available remedies such as review or correction before seeking revision. Therefore, the application for revision was misconceived and incompetent.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out an application to set aside a dismissal order because the applicant, as legal representative, had not been joined within the 90-day limitation period.
Explore more
