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 dismissed a land review application, holding that the applicant raised appeal issues rather than an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence.
The applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient reason to warrant review. The issues raised were new and pertained to the merits of the case, which can only be addressed on appeal, not in review. The application was an attempt to reargue the case and introduce new facts, which is not permissible under the law governing review.
Source excerpt
The application for review was dismissed because the court found that Annexure Soni 2 and Soni 12 were specifically considered and discussed in the original ruling. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that review cannot be used to re-argue the merits of the case or as an appeal in disguise.
Source excerpt
The court found that, having ruled all grounds of appeal to be meritorious, the dismissal of the appeal was a manifest error on the face of the record, justifying review and correction of the judgment to reflect that the appeal is allowed.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal of Tanzania dismissed a review application in a land dispute, holding that no manifest error on the record was shown and review cannot serve as an appeal in disguise.
The High Court dismissed an application to review a land judgment, holding that the alleged mistake in party names was not an apparent error on the record.
The application failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record as required by Rule 27(2) of the Labour Court Rules. The grounds raised amounted to an appeal in disguise, seeking re-evaluation of evidence and findings already determined. Review jurisdiction is limited to obvious errors, not disagreements with judicial reasoning or factual determinations.
Source excerpt
The grounds raised by the applicant do not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The issues of delay and service are matters for appeal, not review. The court is functus officio and cannot reopen the matter under the guise of review.
Source excerpt
The court found that the failure to substitute the deceased plaintiff with his administratrix and the discrepancy in dates between the judgment and decree were errors apparent on the face of the record, justifying review and correction. The remaining grounds raised by the applicant were not proper for review as they related to matters for appeal.
Source excerpt
The absence of the charge sheet in the record of appeal, though apparent, does not constitute a ground for review as the trial court's judgment adequately reproduced its contents, and no miscarriage of justice or denial of the right to be heard occurred. The application was an appeal in disguise and lacked merit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
