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 appellant failed to demonstrate any manifest illegality or denial of right to be heard in the Ward Tribunal proceedings; the trial Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in refusing extension of time; litigation must come to an end and no sufficient cause was shown to disturb the settled decision.
Source excerpt
The suit is barred by res judicata because the subject matter, parties (including privies), claims, and reliefs are identical to those in a prior suit conclusively determined by a competent court. The plaintiffs' wives are privies under Explanation VI to section 9 CPC, and the defendants trace title from the original owner, establishing privity. The preliminary objection is a pure point of law as it can be determined from pleadings.
Source excerpt
The suit is barred by res judicata because the issue of ownership of the suit premises was conclusively determined in Land Case No. 60 of 2019, a judgment in rem binding all parties, including those not present in the original suit. The Plaintiff's remedy was to seek review or appeal, not to relitigate the matter.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to demonstrate any manifest error on the face of the record; his dissatisfaction with the judgment does not meet the threshold for review. The application is an attempt to re-litigate the merits, which is not permissible under the law governing review.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed a review application, holding that the complaints raised were in substance grounds of appeal, not review, and no prejudice or nullity was shown.
The High Court Labour Division dismissed a review application, holding there was no manifest error and that later Court of Appeal authority did not justify reopening the case.
The application for review was dismissed because the alleged error (unsworn evidence) had already been considered and addressed by the Court in the impugned judgment. The applicant's arguments amounted to a disagreement with the Court's findings, which is not a ground for review under Rule 66(1)(a). No manifest error or miscarriage of justice was found.
Source excerpt
The appeal is barred by res judicata as the dispute over the same land and between the same parties has already been conclusively determined in previous High Court cases. The appellant's attempt to relitigate the matter is an abuse of court process.
Source excerpt
Application for revision dismissed because applicant was not dissatisfied with lower court decision and revision is not a substitute for appeal; compensation for adultery not legally recognized.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division dismissed a land revision application as res judicata, holding that a 2017 deed of settlement had already finally resolved the dispute.
Explore more
