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 allowed a land appeal, holding the tribunal wrongly dismissed the application before requiring the applicant to proceed after refusing adjournment.
The High Court allowed a land appeal, finding the Tribunal wrongly withheld costs without reasons after a successful preliminary objection.
The DLHT erred in granting the right to use the disputed land to the respondents after nullifying the Ward Tribunal's proceedings for want of jurisdiction, and erred in awarding costs to the respondents when the irregularity was occasioned by the Ward Tribunal, not the appellant. There is no legal requirement for the DLHT to direct parties to initiate fresh proceedings after nullification.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld liability against the bank for unauthorised account debits, confirmed general damages, and allowed the cross-appeal on costs.
The appeal was struck out due to vagueness and lack of clarity regarding which Tribunal decision or order was being challenged; the grounds of appeal did not match the attached ruling and failed to specify the impugned decision, leaving the court unable to determine the merits.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal acted within its discretion to award costs to the 2nd respondent upon withdrawal of the application by the applicant. There was no illegality or material error in the Tribunal's order, and the Tribunal was not obliged to provide reasons for awarding costs in these circumstances.
Source excerpt
The DLHT correctly struck out the respondent's application for revision as the proper remedy was appeal, not revision, and section 19 of the LDCA bars such revision applications. However, the DLHT erred in failing to award costs to the appellants, as reasons for not awarding costs must be given and the appellants were entitled to costs given the circumstances.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the tribunal correctly rejected inadmissible documents, properly evaluated the evidence, and lawfully awarded costs to the successful respondents. The appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact by the tribunal.
Source excerpt
Order XXXIX rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to appeals struck out for incompetence; the High Court was correct in refusing restoration. However, costs should not have been awarded as the proceedings were not frivolous or vexatious.
Source excerpt
The application lacks merit as the Taxing Officer's award of costs was correct, based on statutory scales and proper exercise of discretion. The absence of receipts does not invalidate the award, and the familial relationship between parties is irrelevant to the legal entitlement to costs.
Source excerpt
Explore more
