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 respondent failed to advance sufficient and tangible grounds to justify recusal; allegations of bias are trivial, unsupported, and do not meet the legal test for judicial disqualification. Recusal would encourage forum shopping and undermine judicial function.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an application for recusal in a probate cause, holding that the grounds raised did not show bias and that repeated applications amounted to forum shopping.
The request for recusal is based on perception, assumption, and imagination rather than plausible or substantiated grounds as required by law and judicial precedent. There is no evidence of bias, conflict of interest, or other valid reason for recusal. Granting recusal on such grounds would amount to abdication of judicial function and encourage forum shopping.
Source excerpt
Applicant failed to prove existence of a legal marriage with the 3rd respondent by not producing a marriage certificate or other admissible evidence. The properties in question were not proved to be matrimonial homes. Spousal consent is only required for matrimonial homes, not all properties. The application was also found to be forum shopping as a similar application had already been dismissed. Therefore, the conditions for grant of temporary injunction were not met.
Source excerpt
The High Court Labour Division refused a recusal request, holding that raising competence and jurisdiction issues does not show bias or justify disqualification.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for revision, finding it was an abuse of process and barred by res judicata after earlier land proceedings.
The High Court in Dar es Salaam struck out a stay application after finding the matter was already before the Court of Appeal and that the filing was forum shopping.
The applicant failed to provide any sufficient reason or account for the nine-month delay in seeking to set aside the dismissal order. The application is also barred by res judicata and res subjudice principles, as the matter was already dismissed by the District Land and Housing Tribunal and not withdrawn. The High Court is functus officio and cannot grant the application.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out an application for extension of time, finding it premature and an abuse of process because a related revision was pending in the Court of Appeal.
The High Court Land Division struck out a land suit as an abuse of process, holding it was res sub judice to an earlier District Court case on the same plot.
Explore more
