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 partly allowed a land appeal, holding the ward tribunal issued a certificate of unsuccessful mediation, but the application was wrongly described and had to be rectified.
The application was filed in contravention of Rule 24 of the Labour Court Rules, 2007, lacking required components; therefore, it is incompetent and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out Africa Energy Limited’s land application as an omnibus application, finding its prayers were unrelated and therefore incompetent.
The application is incompetent because the judgment challenged was a summary judgment, not an ex-parte judgment, and the relief sought is not available under the cited provisions; proper procedure requires application under Order XXXV, Rule 8 of the CPC.
Source excerpt
The High Court Labour Division struck out an application as incompetent, holding it was wrongly titled and registered as a miscellaneous application.
The application is incompetent for failure to attach the High Court's judgment and decree as required by Rule 11(7) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. The omission is fatal and cannot be cured by the oxygen principle.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that an application was incompetent because it cited the wrong provision and wrong law, and overriding objectives could not cure the defect.
The main affidavit was incurably defective for containing untrue statements regarding the number of applicants. The supplementary affidavit filed by the 2nd applicant was not authorized by court order and could not stand alone after the main affidavit was struck out. Without a valid supporting affidavit, the application was incompetent under rule 24(3) of the Labour Court Rules, GN. No. 106 of 2007.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal, holding that an application was incompetent because it cited a non-existent enabling provision.
A wrongly cited application is not a mere typing error and cannot be amended under a general rule when a specific rule exists; the application is incompetent for wrong citation and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
Explore more
