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 application for review was dismissed because the grounds raised did not fall within the permissible grounds for review under Rule 66(1), and the applicant was not wrongly deprived of the right to be heard since his advocate abandoned the supplementary grounds in his presence and he did not object.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to extend time to seek review, finding no proof of a lost earlier filing, no adequate explanation for delay, and no arguable review ground.
The applicant failed to demonstrate any manifest error on the face of the record resulting in miscarriage of justice; his grounds amounted to grounds of appeal rather than review, and the application did not meet the strict requirements for review under Rule 66(1)(a) of the Rules.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended review is based on any of the grounds under Rule 66(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, thus the application for extension of time is devoid of merit.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal review application, holding the alleged errors were not reviewable and that the applicant was not denied a hearing.
The applicant failed to account for the entire period of delay and did not establish any of the grounds for review under Rule 66(1). The application did not meet the mandatory requirements for extension of time to apply for review.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed a prisoner’s request for extra time to seek review, holding he had not shown that any intended review would rely on Rule 66(1) grounds.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a review application, holding that the applicants’ complaints attacked the merits of the earlier decision rather than showing a reviewable error.
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania dismissed a review application, holding that the applicant’s complaints were appeal grounds and not valid review grounds under Rule 66(1).
The Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal review application, holding that the applicant raised appeal grounds rather than review grounds under Rule 66(1).
Explore more
