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 failed to provide evidence of any wrongful or fraudulent acts by the respondents calculated to obstruct execution of the decree; mere non-payment is not a sufficient ground for lifting the corporate veil.
Source excerpt
The court found the 1st defendant breached a commercial agreement and held the guarantors liable, awarding the plaintiff the outstanding sum, interest, general damages, and costs.
The Court of Appeal allowed a civil appeal over dishonoured cheques, holding the trial judge used the wrong standard of proof and failed to assess the evidence properly.
The trial court erred by applying both civil and criminal standards of proof and by failing to properly evaluate the evidence and pleadings. The appellant established his claim on the balance of probabilities, supported by documentary and oral evidence, and is entitled to judgment as prayed.
Source excerpt
The High Court proceedings were vitiated by material irregularities: substituted service was ordered without satisfying legal preconditions, proof by affidavit was not legally permissible for the entire suit, and defendants were not notified of the ex parte judgment delivery date, thereby denying them the right to be heard and rendering the proceedings, judgment, and subsequent orders a nullity.
Source excerpt
There was no sufficient evidence or reason to lift the corporate veil and hold the 4th and 5th defendants personally liable for the acts of the 1st and 2nd defendant companies. The claims against the 4th and 5th defendants are dismissed.
Source excerpt
The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, having actively procured and benefited from the loan, are jointly and severally liable to repay the principal sum, accrued interest, and general damages, as the corporate veil is lifted due to exceptional circumstances where the loan was not shown to have been deposited in the company’s account. The 4th and 5th defendants are not liable as there is no evidence of their involvement or knowledge.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a bid to set aside execution proceedings, rejecting objections on affidavit form, citation defects, signatory authority, prematurity, and corporate veil lifting.
The High Court dismissed a preliminary objection, holding that the dispute raised mixed questions of law and fact that must be proved at trial.
The High Court held the defendants liable under a personal guarantee for an unpaid bank loan, rejecting objections about execution defects, stamp duty, and no case to answer.
Explore more
