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 applicant's affidavit is incurably defective for omitting the place where the oath was taken, rendering the application incompetent and warranting striking out; withdrawal at hearing stage is not permitted as it pre-empts the preliminary objection, but leave to refile is granted for interests of justice in labour matters.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a labour revision application after the applicant conceded preliminary objections, holding it was filed out of time and without leave.
The application was filed outside the 42-day limitation period prescribed by law. The court, lacking jurisdiction over time-barred matters, must dismiss rather than strike out the application.
Source excerpt
The application is incompetent because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedure of moving the Deputy Registrar informally for relief after encountering technical problems with electronic filing, as required by Rule 24(5) of the Judicature and Application of Laws (Electronic Filing) Rules, 2018.
Source excerpt
Since the applicant lacks locus standi to sue or be sued, the proceedings before the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration and the resultant award are a nullity and must be quashed; consequently, the revision application before the High Court is incompetent and is struck out.
Source excerpt
The application was filed on 02.05.2023, which was the next working day after the last day of the limitation period fell on a public holiday; therefore, the application was filed within time and the preliminary objection is without merit.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld a CMA award, finding the employee was fairly terminated for poor performance after PIP reviews, warnings, and meetings under the labour rules.
The High Court upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed a labour revision application as time barred, holding that it was filed beyond the 42-day limit.
The omission to file and serve a notice of intention to seek revision (CMA Form No. 10) does not render the application incompetent as the notice is merely informative and addressed to the CMA, not a mandatory prerequisite for the court's jurisdiction. The preliminary objection required ascertainment of facts and was thus not a pure point of law.
Source excerpt
The High Court quashed a CMA award, holding that fixed-term contracts ended on expiry and any expectation of renewal was rebutted by prior no-renewal notices.
Explore more
