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 application was struck out because jurisdictional errors cannot be cured by the overriding objective principle; matters of jurisdiction must be established by pleadings.
Source excerpt
The preliminary objection does not constitute a pure point of law and does not demonstrate violation of Order XLI Rule 1 and 5 of the CPC; therefore, it lacks merit and is overruled.
Source excerpt
The application was incompetent because only the 1st applicant filed an affidavit, with no express authority to act for the 2nd and 3rd applicants, and the affidavit did not indicate representation or authorization. The mandatory procedural requirements were not met, rendering the application fatally defective.
Source excerpt
The High Court Labour Division struck out a labour revision application for failure to comply with Rule 24 of the Labour Court Rules on notice of application.
The Court of Appeal struck out an application for extension of time because the notice of motion and supporting affidavit were not served on the respondents.
The application is incompetent due to a defective affidavit with unverified paragraphs containing the central grounds for revision; such defects are incurable and cannot be amended, requiring the application to be struck out.
Source excerpt
The application to strike out witness statements was not premature and could properly be made in writing; the preliminary objection was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out an application for extension of time after finding the supporting affidavit defective for using plural language and containing prayers.
The application was not initiated by notice of application as mandatorily required by Rule 24(1) of the Labour Court Rules, rendering it incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Source excerpt
The application is incompetent for citing the wrong enabling provision of law; Rule 48 alone is insufficient to vest jurisdiction for leave to appeal, and failure to cite Rule 45 is fatal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
