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 trial tribunal erred by applying the FIFO principle to preliminary objections without first determining the appellant's objection regarding conflict of interest and competence of the respondents' advocate, which should have been heard first due to its nature.
Source excerpt
The High Court nullified committal proceedings for non-compliance with section 246(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and ordered recommittal and separate counsel.
The application was struck out as premature because the applicants failed to exhaust the alternative remedy of requisitioning a general meeting under section 22 of the Tanganyika Law Society Act. The court found the statutory mechanism to be effective and speedy, and no sufficient evidence was provided to show it was unavailable or ineffective. The court did not address the remaining objections as the first objection was dispositive.
Source excerpt
The High Court held there was no conflict of interest disqualifying Abrasen & Co. Advocates, because the partner involved had not acted for the respondent and disciplinary proceedings were administrative.
The TLS public statement does not bind its members in their professional conduct or create a conflict of interest that would disqualify them from representing the accused; the right to legal representation is constitutional and cannot be ousted by such a statement; no illegality, impropriety, or irregularity was disclosed to warrant revision or disqualification.
Source excerpt
High Court partly allowed a matrimonial appeal, quashing part of a property division and remitting the issue to another magistrate for fresh evidence and fairness review.
The 1st respondent, having been fully represented as director and having conceded to the 2nd respondent's representation in court, cannot later object to the representation as it constitutes an afterthought. The complaint lacks merit and is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out an application for extension of time because the supporting affidavit was defective, having been attested by the applicant’s advocate.
Mr. Mahuna is disqualified from representing the 1st and 3rd respondents due to conflict of interest, as he attested the sale agreement central to the dispute and is a potential witness. Allowing him to continue would violate professional conduct rules and endanger the integrity of the proceedings.
Source excerpt
The court found that the applicant's amendment is necessary to clarify facts already pleaded and determine the real controversy, does not change the nature of the case or negate admissions, and does not cause prejudice to the respondents. Departure from the scheduling conference order is justified in the interests of justice. Allegations of conflict of interest are outside the scope of the present application.
Source excerpt
Explore more
