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 struck out a land suit after finding the plaint failed to sufficiently describe the immovable property as required by Order VII Rule 3 CPC.
Failure to properly describe the suit property renders the plaint defective and the suit incompetent ab initio.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land suit after finding the buyer of the disputed property was a necessary party who had not been joined.
The suit is not res judicata as the subject matter in the previous case was not the same 20 acres in dispute here. However, the suit is incompetent as any challenge to the execution process should have been brought before the executing court under section 38 of the Civil Procedure Code, not by filing a fresh suit. The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Source excerpt
Plaint failed to disclose cause of action against 1st-5th defendants; suit is incompetent due to lack of necessary parties and defective pleadings; striking out against 1st-5th defendants renders suit incompetent against remaining defendants.
Source excerpt
The High Court nullified a magistrate’s judgment after finding the plaint defective and too vague to establish the trial court’s pecuniary jurisdiction.
The High Court Land Division struck out a land suit after upholding a preliminary objection that the plaint was defective for failing to state the subject matter value and verify it properly.
The High Court struck out the land suit after finding the plaint fatally defective for lack of signatures, residence details, and jurisdictional facts.
The High Court upheld preliminary objections by the third party, finding the plaintiff had not answered objections on capacity and pleading defects.
The High Court granted leave to appeal out of time against an ex parte decree and stayed execution, finding counsel’s lapse unintentional and the plaint defective.
Explore more
