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, having participated in the execution proceedings and filed an affidavit to show cause as to why execution should not be carried out, was aware of the application for execution from at least 12th September, 2024. Therefore, the application for stay of execution filed on 30th October, 2024 was out of time and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The applicant demonstrated diligence and persistence in pursuing his right to appeal, and the delay was minimal and satisfactorily explained. The application was properly before the Court as, after the appeal was struck out, the Registrar could not issue a certificate of delay. The applicant's prompt action upon realizing the delay constituted sufficient cause for extension of time.
Source excerpt
The applicant was made aware of the existence of an application for execution on 27/11/2023 upon service of the notice to show cause, and therefore the application for stay of execution filed on 02/05/2024 was outside the prescribed 14-day period and is time barred.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out a notice of appeal for failure to take essential steps, finding no timely appeal or proven follow-up for proceedings.
Respondents failed to comply with rule 90(5) by not reminding the Registrar within the prescribed period after requesting documents, resulting in unjustified delay and warranting the striking out of the notice of appeal.
Source excerpt
The application is time barred as it was filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Rule 45(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, and the leave to refile does not extend or alter the statutory limitation period.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting waiver of the requirement to file written submissions within time. The Single Justice properly exercised discretion under the Rules, and there was no denial of the right to be heard. The application for review was not a proper avenue to challenge the merits of the decision, and no grounds for interference with the Single Justice's ruling were established.
Source excerpt
Applicants failed to establish good cause for extension of time; advocate's negligence and lack of intern's affidavit rendered the explanation insufficient; ignorance of law is not a defence; application dismissed.
Source excerpt
The bill of costs is to be taxed according to the Court of Appeal Rules, allowing only those costs reasonably incurred and supported by evidence. Instruction fees were reduced to a reasonable amount, disbursement items without receipts were taxed off, and only uncontested items were allowed as per the scale of costs.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that a rectified certificate of delay was invalid because its critical date was not supported by the record, so the appeal was time barred.
Explore more
