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 application for stay of execution is incompetent because there is no pending revision application before the court; orders for stay of execution are only issued pending determination of a substantive matter, which is absent here.
Source excerpt
The Court held that, in the absence of a prescribed form for notice of withdrawal and in line with previous authority, it is permissible to allow informal withdrawal of a labour matter with leave to refile, applying Rule 55(1) and (2) of the Labour Court Rules.
Source excerpt
The High Court Labour Division dismissed a prison officer’s review application, holding that labour law jurisdiction does not extend to Prison Service members.
The High Court Labour Division struck out a revision application against a Deputy Registrar’s execution decision for want of jurisdiction.
The Labour Division struck out a bank’s revision application for want of jurisdiction, holding that a Deputy Registrar’s decision must be challenged by review, not revision.
The High Court allowed a labour revision, set aside the CMA ruling refusing condonation, and ordered the dispute to be heard on the merits.
The applicants have demonstrated a common interest and fulfilled the procedural requirements for representative action, as evidenced by the joint affidavit. Leave is granted for Pius E. Mero to represent the other applicants in Revision No. 33/2023.
Source excerpt
The applicants have demonstrated a common interest and have authorized one among them to represent the group, satisfying the requirements for a representative action under Rule 44(2). Leave is granted for Pius E. Mero to represent the others.
Source excerpt
The Labour Division struck out the respondent’s notice of representation as improperly filed because it was signed by the representative himself without authorization.
The affidavit supporting the application before the High Court failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 24(3) of the Labour Court Rules by not stating legal issues arising from the material facts, rendering the application incompetent and the High Court's decision unsustainable.
Source excerpt
Explore more
