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 Mbeya restored a petition dismissed for want of prosecution after finding sufficient cause from counsel’s bereavement and attempted representation.
The applicant's delay was technical, resulting from the previous appeal being struck out for procedural reasons while the applicant was diligently pursuing her rights. Technical delay constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time.
Source excerpt
The High Court at Mwanza dismissed an application for extension of time to challenge a taxed bill of costs, finding no sufficient cause for a 119-day delay.
The applicant provided sufficient reasons for the delay, and since the application was not opposed, the court exercised its discretion to grant the extension of time.
Source excerpt
The applicant's old age and health problems, supported by uncontroverted evidence, constituted sufficient cause for her late appearance. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order and readmit the application.
Source excerpt
The application is not barred by res judicata as the prior case involved different parties and issues, and was not conclusive of the present matter. The applicant has locus standi, filed within time, and established an arguable case. Certiorari is a sufficient remedy at this stage. Leave is therefore granted.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed an appeal against refusal of extension of time, holding that a brief delay caused by seeking legal assistance was justifiable.
The High Court’s Land Division granted leave to appeal, finding the intended appeal raised arguable issues about affidavit contradictions and reasons for non-appearance.
Applicant's sickness is a sufficient reason for delay; alleged illegalities not apparent on the face of the record and cannot be determined at this stage.
Source excerpt
The error committed by applicants' counsel was a bona fide human mistake, not negligence, and no serious damage would occur to the respondent if the defence is restored. Sufficient cause was demonstrated for non-appearance, justifying exercise of court's discretion to set aside the previous order and restore the Written Statement of Defence.
Source excerpt
Explore more
