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
Failure to serve the respondent with the notice of motion and supporting documents within the prescribed fourteen days is a serious violation of Rule 55(1) and renders the application incompetent; therefore, the application must be struck out with costs.
Source excerpt
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to appear or prosecute the matter since filing, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution under the Civil Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants failed to comply with the court's order to timely serve their written submissions, thereby curtailing the Plaintiff's right to be heard and undermining judicial case management. Their conduct amounted to a refusal or neglect to comply with court directions, justifying dismissal of their preliminary objections for want of prosecution.
Source excerpt
The application was filed under an incorrect case subtype in the eCMS system, and the system does not allow post-filing correction. For proper record-keeping and case management, the only remedy is to allow withdrawal with leave to refile under the correct case subtype. This procedural correction does not circumvent substantive preliminary objections, which may be raised afresh upon refiling.
Source excerpt
The court rejected a collusive adjournment request and dismissed the plaintiff’s case for want of prosecution after witness statements were not pursued to hearing.
The plaintiff's sole witness failed to attend court for cross-examination on dates fixed by mutual consent and court order, without disclosing a valid reason for travel or making adequate efforts to participate remotely. The absence was without good cause, violating court orders and overriding objective principles. The witness statement was struck out, and with no evidence remaining, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Source excerpt
The court referred the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the parties' agreement, holding that the arbitration clause is valid and binding, and that neither section 14 nor section 15 of the Arbitration Act was triggered by party application, but the court may exercise inherent judicial case management powers to enforce the arbitration clause. The suit cannot proceed in court and is outside its cognizance. The issue of witness statement service is moot as the matter is referred to arbitration.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte judgment, finding the appellants failed to show sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The applicant failed to pursue the application with diligence, did not respond to requests for submissions despite extensions, and could not be contacted by his counsel. The respondent also failed to respond. The Court found that further examination of the application was no longer justified and struck it out from the roll.
Source excerpt
Striking out a suit due to expiry of a speed track is not authorized by the Civil Procedure Code; the trial court should instead impose costs on the party responsible for delay and proceed to hear the suit on its merits.
Source excerpt
Explore more
