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 rejected objections to a supporting affidavit’s verification clause, holding the word “advocate” was a typing error and caused no prejudice.
The application was struck out because the supporting affidavit failed to comply with mandatory requirements of Rule 24 (3) (a) (c) (d) of the Labour Court Rules and contained a defective jurat, rendering the application incurably defective.
Source excerpt
The affidavit in support of the application is not defective as it contains the name, place, and date in the jurat as required by law. However, the application for security for costs fails because the applicant did not provide proof of costs already incurred or likely to be incurred, as required by law and established case law.
Source excerpt
The omission of the attesting officer's name in the jurat does not render the application incompetent; applicant should be allowed to file a fresh affidavit with the correct jurat.
Source excerpt
Omission of attesting officer's name in the jurat does not render the affidavit incurably defective under Tanzanian law; the application should not be struck out and amendment is permissible.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out criminal applications because the supporting affidavits were defective and had been administered by prison officers without authority.
The counter affidavit is incurably defective for failing to state the place in the jurat as required by law and is expunged. The remaining affidavit evidence does not satisfactorily answer why the other applicants did not enter appearance, and thus the application for review fails.
Source excerpt
Explore more
