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
A reference to the High Court is not competent against an interlocutory order of the taxing master dismissing a bill of costs for want of prosecution; only final decisions determining parties' rights are referable under Order 7(1).
Source excerpt
High Court allowed a land appeal, holding that a partly heard case should not have been dismissed for want of prosecution after the appellant refused to continue.
The High Court restored a land appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, holding that the applicant and his advocate had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance through affidavit and medical evidence.
The High Court’s Land Division dismissed the suit for want of prosecution after neither party appeared and the plaintiff had not diligently pursued the case.
The applicant's failure to file written submissions as directed and absence without notice constitutes want of prosecution, warranting dismissal of the application with costs.
Source excerpt
The proceedings and judgments of the trial court and first appellate court are nullity because the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and proceeded without restoration, violating mandatory procedural rules.
Source excerpt
The High Court of Tanzania struck out an application for extension of time because the chamber summons and supporting affidavit were inconsistent and defective.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that prior dismissals for want of prosecution were not on the merits, but the fresh suit used the same causes of action.
Appellant failed to pay court fees within the time ordered, rendering the filing incomplete and constituting non-appearance; application dismissed for want of prosecution.
Source excerpt
The appellant's prompt filing of miscellaneous applications after dismissal constituted technical delay, not negligence. The delay was excusable and sufficient reason for extension of time. The District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for extension of time.
Source excerpt
Explore more
