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 nullified a CMA labour award after finding fatal procedural irregularities in arbitrator succession and admission of exhibits.
The High Court nullified CMA clarification proceedings, holding the notice was improperly signed and the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to revise and recalculate the award.
The arbitral proceedings and award were null and void as the arbitrator was not accredited or registered as required by the Arbitration Act, 2020 at the time of issuing the award, and there was non-compliance with statutory requirements regarding timing and notification.
Source excerpt
The High Court set aside an additional arbitral award as time-barred, holding the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction after expiry of the statutory periods.
The arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute ex parte; the statutory framework only permits conciliation by the arbitrator, and upon failure, the matter must be referred for arbitration, not determined ex parte by the conciliator.
Source excerpt
The High Court nullified CMA proceedings and set aside the award after finding that the arbitrator’s takeover was not properly assigned or explained.
The Sole Arbitrator lacked substantive jurisdiction because the underlying Milling Agreement, including the arbitration clause, was void for want of capacity as required by section 40A(1)(m) of the Public Corporation Act, Cap.257 [R.E 2002]. Consequently, the arbitral award is invalid and must be set aside in whole.
Source excerpt
The High Court recorded that Water Aid Tanzania’s application to set aside an arbitral award was withdrawn after the parties settled the underlying dispute.
The failure of the adjudicator to deliver a ruling within the contractual 14-day period rendered the adjudication a nullity, and the arbitrator's reliance on such a ruling constituted misconduct and excess of jurisdiction under section 70(2)(e) of the Arbitration Act, 2020, warranting the setting aside of the arbitral award.
Source excerpt
The Sole Arbitrator committed serious irregularity and misconduct by amending pleadings to substitute the proper party, thereby exceeding his jurisdiction and manifesting bias. The award was procured against an entity not properly made a party to the proceedings, rendering the award a nullity. The arbitrator's actions tainted the proceedings and award with illegality, justifying setting aside the award under section 70 of the Arbitration Act, 2020.
Source excerpt
Explore more
