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
Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case as they did not provide evidence of ownership of the disputed land. Without proof of ownership, irreparable loss and balance of convenience cannot be established. All conditions for granting Mareva injunction must be met, and applicants failed to satisfy them.
Source excerpt
The High Court has jurisdiction to grant interim injunctive relief pending arbitration, even where the seat of arbitration is outside Tanzania, as the alleged breaches occurred in Tanzania and the distributorship agreement allows recourse to courts for interim reliefs. The applicant satisfied the tests for granting an injunction: there is a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm would occur without the injunction, and the balance of convenience favors the applicant.
Source excerpt
The applicant conceded to breach of lease terms, thus has no legal or equitable right to protection by injunction. No serious triable issue exists regarding the lease termination. The applicant failed to substantiate claims of irreparable loss or demonstrate that losses could not be compensated by damages. The balance of convenience favors the respondents, as their tenants and community are affected by the applicant's conduct.
Source excerpt
The Court held it has jurisdiction to entertain the Reference as allegations of Treaty infringement were raised, and exhaustion of local remedies is not required. However, the Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, and sought to stay non-existent orders (taxation of costs yet to be filed), amounting to an abuse of process. Therefore, the application for interim orders was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The applicant established a strong and reasonable apprehension of imminent infringement of its trademark by the respondent, based on past conduct and evidence of compounding by the Fair Competition Commission. The trinity of tests for interim injunctions was satisfied: a prima facie case was shown, irreparable loss was likely, and the balance of convenience favored the applicant. However, the prayer for disclosure of suppliers was premature and not granted at this stage.
Source excerpt
The applicants established a prima facie case as there is a serious triable issue regarding ownership and occupation of the land. The applicants demonstrated risk of irreparable harm as they depend on the land for their livelihood and are in physical occupation, while respondents did not show they would be prejudiced by maintenance of status quo. The statutory notice requirement was met. Therefore, the order for maintenance of status quo is justified pending the expiry of the 90-day notice and filing of the main suit.
Source excerpt
The applicants failed to meet the cumulative conditions for grant of interim relief as set out in Atilio vs Mbowe. They did not establish locus standi, as they sued in their personal capacity despite claiming to act for a larger group, and granting the orders to only 65 out of over 4,300 traders would be detrimental to public interest.
Source excerpt
The applicant established a prima facie case of trademark infringement, demonstrated likelihood of irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation, and showed that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction. The court found the application meritorious and granted the temporary injunction.
Source excerpt
The High Court Labour Division lacks original jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions in matters pending before the CMA; such applications must be made to the CMA, and the Labour Court's jurisdiction arises only upon revision. Granting the application would interfere with the CMA's mandate and contradict the statutory scheme under the ELRA.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an application for interim injunction over disputed land, holding that the applicant failed to show a prima facie case against execution of a Court of Appeal order.
Explore more
