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 reasons advanced for recusal are flimsy and do not fall within the prescribed principles; no evidence of bias or conflict exists, and the current case is new. However, in the interest of justice, the judge recused himself.
Source excerpt
The Applicant failed to provide any objective evidence or reasonable basis to support allegations of bias or conflict of interest against Justice Charles Nyachae. The timing and nature of the application suggested an abuse of process. The presumption of judicial impartiality was not rebutted, and the threshold for recusal was not met.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a recusal application, holding the allegations of bias were unsupported and did not justify disqualification of the presiding judge.
The High Court Labour Division refused a recusal request, holding that raising competence and jurisdiction issues does not show bias or justify disqualification.
The defendant's counsel failed to provide sufficient factual or legal grounds for recusal under Rule 9 of GN. 1001 of 2020. Alleged conflict of interest and bias were not substantiated, and scheduling conflicts were resolved. The judge found no justification for recusal and will proceed to hear the case.
Source excerpt
The Applicant failed to pursue his case with due diligence by not responding to repeated requests for supporting documents and replies, justifying the striking out of the application under Rule 65(1)(b) of the Rules of Court.
Source excerpt
Allowing an advocate to represent a party in a matter in which he previously acted as a judicial officer constitutes a conflict of interest, undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and renders all proceedings a nullity.
Source excerpt
The African Court held that Rwanda did not violate the applicant’s rights to a fair trial, equality, or work in a dismissal dispute, and dismissed all reparations claims.
The applicant failed to prove any violation of the rights to a fair trial, equality before the law, or the right to work, as the national courts examined the facts and law appropriately, provided reasoned decisions, and awarded compensation where due. No discrimination or judicial bias was established. The respondent state did not violate its obligations under the African Charter.
Source excerpt
The trial court's ruling on case to answer improperly suggested the appellant's guilt before hearing the defence, constituting a fundamental irregularity that vitiated the entire proceedings and judgment of both the trial and first appellate courts, thereby denying the appellant a fair trial.
Source excerpt
Explore more
