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 High Court’s Commercial Division recorded a deed of settlement as a consent judgment, settling a dispute over a joint venture agreement and related prior judgment.
The High Court struck out Gold Africa Limited’s petition, holding that the dispute fell under an arbitration clause in the parties’ Joint Venture Agreement.
The High Court of Tanzania dismissed an application for a temporary injunction over land redevelopment, finding the injunction tests were not fully satisfied.
The appeal was dismissed because the petition was a proper derivative action with statutory notice duly served and leave granted; the High Court was justified in granting consequential reliefs, including remission of shares and management, due to breach of the JVA and SPA and lack of consideration; general damages were justified based on the exclusion of minority shareholders and unjust enrichment; and the procedure of determining the petition by affidavits and written submissions was proper and caused no prejudice.
Source excerpt
Judgment on admission is entered in favour of the plaintiff in counterclaim as the defendant admitted all claims, entitling the plaintiff to the reliefs sought including costs.
Source excerpt
The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a joint venture agreement for acquisition of the suit property, with Plaintiff entitled to 49% and Defendant 51% ownership. The property must be registered as tenancy in common reflecting these shares, as Plaintiff contributed majority of funds and Defendant failed to include Plaintiff in registration. The law mandates occupancy in common for non-spouses without court leave.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to account for each and every day of delay and did not demonstrate good cause for extension of time; the subject matter is a land dispute within the jurisdiction of the Land Division.
Source excerpt
The contract expressly provided for the division of profits and specified costs; costs not agreed in writing by both parties cannot be deducted. The District Court erred by considering unilateral costs not part of the contract. The appellant is entitled to 30% of the net profit after contractual deductions plus the specified capital repayment. The primary court's decision is reinstated.
Source excerpt
Explore more
