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 at Bukoba found a prima facie breach of an injunction and ordered the respondents to appear, with possible arrest, detention, and attachment measures.
The status quo order issued on 7.11.2022 was intended to last only until the applicant filed a suit and application for temporary injunction, or for 90 days, not indefinitely. The applicant failed to file the required application, thereby waiving protection. Even assuming the order remained valid, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the 1st respondent violated the order, as the photos and videos lacked dates and proof of changes after the order. The application is without merit and is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Applicants failed to prove that respondents were served with or made aware of the court order for maintenance of status quo ante; evidence was insufficient to establish willful disobedience, especially as demolition may have occurred before the order was issued.
Source excerpt
The 4th respondent was aware of the court order to maintain status quo ante and failed to comply within a reasonable time, amounting to contempt. The applicants established beyond reasonable doubt that the 4th respondent defied the court order, justifying issuance of summons to the managing director to show cause.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to provide credible evidence proving that the respondents disobeyed the court's temporary injunction order. Mere allegations and suspicion are insufficient to establish contempt, and the burden of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt, was not discharged.
Source excerpt
The temporary injunction order sought to be enforced had expired after six months as per Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, and there was no evidence of extension. Therefore, the application is incompetent and struck out.
Source excerpt
The alleged error is not self-evident and requires a long-drawn argument involving examination of statutes and case law; therefore, it does not qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be grounds for review.
Source excerpt
Contempt proceedings are not subject to the 60-day limitation under Item 21 but fall under Item 20, allowing 12 years for enforcement of court orders; preliminary objections based on time bar, res sub judice, and being overtaken by events fail as contempt proceedings are sui generis and not affected by withdrawal of the originating application or pending revision; factual issues regarding party status do not qualify as preliminary objections.
Source excerpt
The High Court found the respondent in contempt for issuing notices to tenants after a status quo order over land was made, and fined him Tshs. 300,000.
The High Court dismissed an application to restrain execution, holding that a stay of execution had lapsed because the applicants failed to furnish required security.
Explore more
