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 allowed a criminal appeal, holding that a primary court case was wrongly dismissed after the complainant missed court only once.
The High Court in Shinyanga dismissed a civil appeal seeking extension of time after finding the appellant had not shown sufficient cause for the delay.
The applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for non-appearance in three consecutive court sessions, and did not notify the court in a timely manner; thus, the court declined to exercise its discretion to restore the appeal.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a land appeal, quashing a tribunal dismissal entered on the first hearing day and restoring the application for hearing before another chairperson.
The High Court allowed an appeal against dismissal of a civil suit for non-appearance, holding the case had been fixed for mention rather than hearing and restoring the suit for trial.
The DLHT erred in dismissing the application solely based on perceived lack of interest by the appellant, ignoring that delays were not one-sided and the appellant showed intent to prosecute. The DLHT should have adjourned the matter as prayed and not punished the appellant for his advocate's failures. The appeal was filed within the statutory period after proper exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to provide a credible and sufficient explanation for his non-appearance, as the affidavit contained inconsistencies regarding the date of illness and lacked evidence of attempts to notify the court, amounting to negligence and lack of diligence. Restoration of the appeal was therefore not justified.
Source excerpt
The trial tribunal erred by dismissing the application without properly considering the reasons for absence of some Appellants and failing to explore alternative remedies under Regulation 13. This amounted to violation of the right to be heard.
Source excerpt
The High Court quashed a DLHT dismissal order, holding the tribunal failed to follow Regulation 13 before dismissing the applicant’s land application for non-appearance.
Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires dismissal of the charge and discharge of the accused for prosecution non-appearance, not acquittal. The trial Magistrate erred by acquitting instead of discharging the accused.
Source excerpt
Explore more
