Tanzania Case Law

PDFTCMSource9j7ud

Court

TANZLII

The application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was filed beyond the 60 days limitation period prescribed by Item 21 of Part III of the Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act for applications under the Arbitration Act; therefore, the application is time barred and must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards
• Time limitation for filing arbitral awards
• Jurisdictional objections
• Application of limitation act to arbitration act

Read case analysis

ditram raymond mkoma vs mwani mariculture limited 2023 tzhc 17439 30 mei 2023

Court

TZHC

The application is incompetent for being supported by a defective affidavit not attested by a Commissioner for Oaths, in contravention of section 8 of the Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act. The application was filed within time, but the procedural defect is fatal and cannot be cured by the overriding objective principle.

Source excerpt

• Time limitation for filing revision
• Defective affidavit
• Jurisdictional objections
• Procedural compliance

Read case analysis

prestine properties limited vs seyani brothers co ltd 2022 tzhccomd 86 6 april 2022

Court

TZHCCOMD

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. The court held the proposed grounds on retrospective application of the Arbitration Act and jurisdiction were not arguable.

• Retrospective application of statute
• Jurisdictional objections
• Leave to appeal
• Arbitration
• Leave-to-appeal
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis

hassan juma mambo vs mussa idd 2021 tzhc 12575 28 november 2021

Court

TZHC

The order setting aside the dismissal and restoring the appeal is interlocutory as it does not determine the substantive rights of the parties; such orders are not appealable under section 74(2) CPC and Order XL of the CPC.

Source excerpt

• Appealability of interlocutory orders
• Restoration of dismissed appeals
• Jurisdictional objections

Read case analysis

athumani mashaka mzee vs crje east africa limited 2021 tzhcld 69 16 aprili 2021

Court

TANZLII

The application was brought under wrong provisions of law, specifically citing Rule 56 of the Labour Court Rules which does not apply to the relief sought. This defect is fatal and renders the entire application incompetent, warranting its striking out.

Source excerpt

• Striking out applications
• Wrong citation of law
• Affidavit defects
• Jurisdictional objections

Read case analysis

MUGAYA MARIMA RULING 0001

Court

TANZLII

The fourth paragraph of the affidavit contains a legal argument regarding jurisdiction, not a fact within the deponent's knowledge, and thus violates Order XIX Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code; it must be expunged from the record.

Source excerpt

• Affidavit requirements
• Jurisdictional objections
• Expunging affidavit paragraphs

Read case analysis

20040924 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1

Court

TZHC

The application was incompetent due to citation of the wrong provision of law (Order 37 instead of Order 36 CPC), and even if the correct provision had been cited, the prerequisites for attachment before judgment were not met as there was no evidence of intent to obstruct or delay execution by removal or disposal of property. The ship's departure was in the normal course of business and did not amount to such intent.

Source excerpt

• Interlocutory injunctions
• Attachment before judgment
• Wrong citation of law
• Carriage of goods by sea
• Jurisdictional objections

Read case analysis

mr baldev norataram varma 2 others vs mr robert scheltens another 2004 tzhccomd 65 7 september 2004

Court

TZHCCOMD

The High Court of Tanzania stayed commercial proceedings and referred the dispute to arbitration under an agreement’s arbitration clause.

• Stay of proceedings
• Arbitration clause enforcement
• Breach of contract
• Jurisdictional objections
• Arbitration
• Stay-of-proceedings

Read case analysis

20020627 TZHC Mbeya 1

Court

TZHC

The High Court dismissed an appeal, holding that the Director of the British Council enjoyed diplomatic immunity and that the British Council was not suable under Order XXIX.

• Diplomatic immunity of foreign mission staff
• Suing foreign organizations
• Order xxix of civil procedure code
• Employment contract termination
• Jurisdictional objections
• Diplomatic-immunity

Read case analysis