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 counterclaim was improperly instituted as a separate suit without a court order for separate determination and against a non-existent party. Therefore, it must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal set aside a High Court judgment after finding the trial judge decided a new issue without hearing the parties on it.
The arbitration clause in the insurance policy was not binding as it required further consent and no steps were taken to initiate arbitration; thus, the trial court had jurisdiction. Driving without a valid licence did not void the insurance contract as no negligence was proved. Non-disclosure of another insurance policy did not affect indemnity but would only affect apportionment between insurers. The award of general damages by the trial court was excessive and not justified; it was reduced to a reasonable amount.
Source excerpt
The suit was time-barred as the Minister's extension of time was ultra vires and ineffectual; the aggregate limitation period expired before the suit was filed; the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Source excerpt
The defendant did not breach the MOF Agreement as the obligation to insure remained with the plaintiff, but a separate agency agreement existed whereby the defendant, acting as the plaintiff's agent, failed to procure the insurance cover as specifically instructed. The necessary party's liability is limited to TZS 20,000,000 as per the policy endorsement, and the plaintiff failed to strictly prove special damages beyond this amount. General damages are awarded due to the defendant's negligence and breach of agency duty.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an insured's claim against his insurer after finding he failed to prove the alleged collision and resulting damage on a balance of probabilities.
The High Court found First Assurance breached its insurance obligation by delaying and repudiating a fire loss claim without proving fraud, and dismissed the claim against the broker.
The High Court Commercial Division dismissed an insurance claim for fire loss, holding the plaintiff failed to prove the accident date and transit evidence on balance of probabilities.
The application for discovery fails because the Applicant did not establish that the Respondent is in possession of the requested documents, and the application amounts to a fishing expedition rather than a necessary step for fair disposal of the suit. The minimum criteria for discovery under Order XI Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code were not satisfied.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove permanent disability as required by the loan agreement's insurance clause, specifically lacking a medical underwriting evidencing such disability. The documentary evidence submitted did not meet the contractual or legal threshold for permanent disability, and thus the appellant was not entitled to indemnification. The absence of an insurance policy document between the respondent and an insurance company was not determinative; the key issue was proof of permanent disability.
Source excerpt
Explore more
