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 dismissal order was erroneous due to an error apparent on the face of the record, specifically the omission of parties in the eCMS system, rendering the suit incompetent. The proper remedy was to strike out the suit, not dismiss it for being time barred.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Ruby Roadways’ review application, finding the earlier judgment was reasoned and the complaint was really a bid to re-argue the appeal.
The alleged error is not self-evident and requires a long-drawn argument involving examination of statutes and case law; therefore, it does not qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be grounds for review.
Source excerpt
The court found that the applicants' counsel intended to have the suit struck out, not withdrawn, and the order for withdrawal did not reflect this manifest intention. Entering an order for withdrawal instead of striking out was an error apparent on the face of the record, resulting in injustice by barring refiling. The error was rectifiable under the review provisions.
Source excerpt
Application to review a Court of Appeal judgment failed because the alleged mistake concerned re-appraisal of evidence, not an apparent error on the record.
There was an error apparent on the face of the record because the suit was marked as settled out of court without a written deed of settlement or consent judgment, contrary to the requirements for agreements based on written contracts. The absence of a written settlement rendered the order unenforceable and justified review.
Source excerpt
The application for review was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any manifest error apparent on the face of the record or illegality in the judgment. The court held that the applicant's dissatisfaction with the judgment should have been pursued by way of appeal, not review, as the grounds raised did not meet the legal threshold for review under Order XLII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
The court found that the previous order striking out the entire application was an error apparent on the face of the record, as the objection and reasoning only applied to the misjoinder of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The correct order should have been to strike off only the names of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, leaving the application intact against the 1st respondent.
Source excerpt
The High Court partly allowed a land review application, finding no reviewable error on most grounds but correcting the prior order to strike out, not dismiss, the suit.
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania dismissed a revision application, holding that the alleged boundary error in the High Court’s review ruling was not an error apparent on the face of the record.
Explore more
