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 application was filed out of time because the requisite court fee was paid on 7 January 2025, which was beyond the 30-day limitation period from the date of dismissal (4 December 2024), and no explanation for the delay was provided; thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Source excerpt
The application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit as the payment control number was issued on 31st May, 2024, making the application time-barred and subject to dismissal.
Source excerpt
The court held that since the applicant’s initial application for revision was filed within the statutory period and the delay was due to a technical error in the e-filing system, the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time. Technical delay, as opposed to real or actual delay, justifies the grant of extension.
Source excerpt
The applicants failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, as the reasons advanced—network error and rejection by the Deputy Registrar—were not substantiated or justified under the law. The failure to attach the drawn order and to seek exemption for manual filing demonstrated negligence, and the delay of even one day was not accounted for.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a labour revision application as time-barred after finding the applicants failed to prove timely filing within the court-ordered 30 days.
The order striking out the unsigned CMA F1 was interlocutory as it did not finally determine the rights and liabilities of the parties; therefore, the application for revision is not maintainable under Rule 50 of GN. No. 106 of 2007.
Source excerpt
The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for delay due to technical issues with electronic filing and raised arguable illegality in the CMA award; the absence of a properly filed notice of representation did not prejudice the respondent and was accidental, thus the application for extension of time is granted.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division struck out an application for leave to appeal, holding it was filed out of time and brought under the wrong provision of law.
Explore more
