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 partly allowed a security for costs application, ordering Leighton Offshore PTE Limited to deposit USD 125,000 and refusing departure from the scheduling order.
The applicant failed to prove that the 2nd respondent had absconded or left the jurisdiction with intent to delay, avoid, or obstruct execution of a decree. The 2nd respondent has never been present in Tanzania, and mere absence or insistence on arbitration does not amount to intent to avoid court process. There is no evidence of misbehavior or intent to obstruct justice. Therefore, the application for arrest before judgment or security is without merit.
Source excerpt
The affidavit in support of the application is not defective as it contains the name, place, and date in the jurat as required by law. However, the application for security for costs fails because the applicant did not provide proof of costs already incurred or likely to be incurred, as required by law and established case law.
Source excerpt
The application is competent due to proper citation of enabling provisions, but fails on merit as the 1st respondent is a person of substance with assets and valid permits in Tanzania, and there is no evidence of poverty or insolvency to justify an order for security for costs.
Source excerpt
The application was struck out because the applicants failed to cite the specific enabling provision, Rule 120(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, rendering the application incompetent.
Source excerpt
The application was struck out because the applicants failed to cite Rule 120(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which is the specific provision governing applications for deposit of security for costs. Citing Rule 4 was insufficient and inapplicable, making the application incompetent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
