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 dismissed an application for mandamus and certiorari against the Tanganyika Law Society, finding no proven denial of access to documents and no impugned decision.
The High Court struck out an application for judicial review because the applicant sought prerogative orders without first obtaining leave, as required by rule 5(1).
The High Court granted leave to seek judicial review after finding an arguable complaint about alleged denial of fair hearing in a teacher’s termination.
Applicant demonstrated an arguable issue regarding whether preliminary inquiry under Police General Orders was conducted prior to disciplinary proceedings; leave to file judicial review is granted.
Source excerpt
The disciplinary process was vitiated by illegality due to failure to conduct a preliminary inquiry, use of an unsigned and thus defective charge, and denial of the applicant's right to liberty and fair hearing during a bailable offence. These procedural violations rendered the dismissal decision unlawful and invalid, warranting its quashing and the applicant's reinstatement.
Source excerpt
The High Court granted leave for a former police officer to seek certiorari and mandamus challenging his dismissal, finding an arguable case and no alternative remedy.
The application is incompetent as there is no decision by the second or third respondents subject to judicial review, and the dispute arises from a contractual relationship for which judicial review is not the proper remedy.
Source excerpt
The applicant satisfied all three conditions for leave to apply for judicial review: existence of an arguable case regarding election procedures, timely filing, and sufficient interest as a member and candidate.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, did not account for all days of delay, and did not establish that the ruling and drawn order were necessary prerequisites for filing the application for judicial review. The law does not require attachment of the ruling or drawn order, and the applicant's inaction and negligence do not justify extension of time.
Source excerpt
The applicant satisfied all six legal criteria for leave to apply for judicial review, including establishment of a prima facie case, sufficient interest, timely filing, decision by a public body, exhaustion of remedies, and good faith. The compounding order is final and unappealable, making judicial review the appropriate remedy.
Source excerpt
Explore more
