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 applicant demonstrated that the respondents are foreign entities residing outside Tanzania and do not possess sufficient immovable property within Tanzania. The respondents failed to categorically controvert these facts. Therefore, the statutory conditions for ordering security for costs are satisfied.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land suit filed in Dar es Salaam over property in Songea, holding that section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code required filing where the land is situated.
The High Court ordered a foreign respondent to deposit USD 36,623.9 as security for costs, finding it had no sufficient immovable property in Tanzania.
The High Court dismissed an application for security for costs, holding that the statutory conditions under Order XXV Rule 1 were not met.
The High Court Land Division held it lacked territorial jurisdiction over a land dispute concerning property situated in Iringa and struck out the suit with costs.
A foreign plaintiff without immovable property in Tanzania is liable to provide security for costs under Order XXV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Respondent meets these criteria and must deposit security. The quantum is set at USD 20,000, balancing the need to protect the Defendant and the Plaintiff's right to access the Court.
Source excerpt
A foreign plaintiff without immovable property in Tanzania must deposit security for costs under Order XXV Rule 1 CPC; quantum is discretionary and set at USD 20,000 considering the complexity and value of the dispute, balancing access to justice and protection of the defendant.
Source excerpt
The applicant fulfilled all three conditions for stay of execution: the application was filed within time, a firm undertaking to provide security was given, and substantial loss would result from execution as the subject matter is a residential house occupied by the applicant and his family. Therefore, stay of execution is warranted pending appeal.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that shares are not immovable property and ordered the respondent, a non-resident of Tanzania, to deposit security for costs.
The High Court ordered security for costs after finding the respondent lived outside Tanzania and shares in a company were not immovable property.
Explore more
