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 applicant demonstrated a technical delay due to clerical errors not attributable to her, acted promptly after the appeal was struck out, and adequately explained the delay. The law allows correction of clerical errors at any time and extension of time for good cause.
Source excerpt
The High Court of Tanzania partly rectified a withdrawal order, correcting the case title error but refusing to insert leave to refile under section 96.
The High Court struck out a land appeal after holding that Dodoma City Council was wrongly included, since it had been withdrawn at the tribunal stage.
Clerical errors in case numbers and names are trivial and do not render the judgment a nullity; substantive justice prevails over technicalities. No abuse of court process was demonstrated.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division dismissed an application to extend time to seek review, holding that clerical registration errors did not justify extension.
The decree in Land Case No. 27 of 2013 did not agree with the judgment as required by law, due to omission of a specific order, discrepancy in dates, and improper signature. These errors are clerical or accidental and are curable under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court has the mandate to rectify such errors to ensure the decree reflects the judgment.
Source excerpt
The High Court Labour Division struck out a revision application, holding that the impugned CMA ruling was interlocutory and barred by Rule 50.
The High Court dismissed a land revision application as incompetent after finding the tribunal record was not properly identified. It also addressed locus standi and clerical error arguments.
Application for leave to appeal and certification of points of law was dismissed; the court held the issues raised were factual, clerical, or not preserved below.
The omission of five respondents from the previous order is not a clerical error within the meaning of Section 96 CPC, as adding them would affect their rights and they were not parties to the original settlement or proceedings. The application to rectify the order is therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
