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
Committal proceedings are not a nullity if the substantive requirements of rule 8 of the CECD Rules are complied with, even if the magistrate cited an inapplicable provision of the CPA; such citation is curable under section 4A of the CPA.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a civil appeal over alleged misappropriation of group funds, holding the respondent had locus standi and the award was supported by evidence.
The High Court (Commercial Division) extended the expired speed track life span by four months, holding the rules contained a lacuna that justified resort to inherent powers.
Rule 32 does not apply to subsequent applications for extension beyond the initial period; since the plaintiff stalled the proceedings by filing an intervening application and failed to comply with court directions, the interest of justice does not warrant further extension, and the suit is dismissed under Rule 29(3).
Source excerpt
There is a lacuna in Rule 32 regarding extension after expiry of the prescribed period, thus Section 93 of the Civil Procedure Code applies, and the court has discretion to extend the life span of the case to ensure justice is served.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out an application to amend a record of appeal, holding it was wrongly brought under Rule 111 instead of Rule 96(6).
The High Court Commercial Division dismissed this long-pending suit under Rule 47 after no application was made within six months of the last adjournment.
The High Court struck out an application for stay of execution, holding it was filed under the wrong provisions. It confirmed the court had jurisdiction, but the motion was incompetent.
The appeal was struck out as incompetent because the drawn order in the record was signed by the District Registrar instead of the Judge, contrary to the mandatory requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 35(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
The preliminary objection based on non-filing of written submissions under the 2009 Rules was dismissed because the appeal was filed before those rules came into effect, making it impracticable to apply them. However, the appeal was struck out as incompetent because the drawn order was signed by the District Registrar instead of the Judge, contrary to mandatory legal requirements.
Source excerpt
Explore more
