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 held that the appellant had pleaded grounds for exemption from limitation under Order VII rule 6, and held the costs order against a legal aid beneficiary improper.
Applicant failed to account for each day of delay and did not demonstrate sufficient cause; alleged illegality was not material and was curable as a clerical error, thus not warranting extension of time.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction for impregnating a schoolgirl, but upheld the rape conviction and 30-year sentence.
A reference challenging taxation of costs was dismissed after the High Court held the taxing officer acted within discretion on instruction fees and attendance charges.
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania dismissed a review application in a narcotics case, finding no manifest error and no denial of a hearing under Rule 66.
The DLHT erred by not affording the parties the right to be heard on the issue of time limitation, rendering its proceedings a nullity. However, due to lack of evidence of payment for obtaining certified copies, the Bill of Costs was filed out of time and the DLHT's decision is validated.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the respondent State violated the applicant's right to a fair trial by failing to provide free legal assistance to an indigent foreign national facing a serious criminal charge and by failing to inform him of his right to consular assistance. However, the Court found no violation regarding the evaluation of evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, as the national courts' procedures did not reveal manifest errors or denial of justice.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the applicant's right to a fair hearing under Article 7(1) of the Charter was not violated regarding the examination of his grounds of appeal, as the national courts considered the relevant issues. However, the Court held that the respondent violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, read with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, by failing to provide the applicant with free legal assistance in a serious criminal case carrying a severe penalty.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land suit after the plaintiffs conceded they had not served mandatory notice on government defendants under section 6(2).
The appellant was not fairly tried due to lack of effective legal representation caused by conflict of interest among accused persons, violating the right to a fair hearing under the Constitution and statutory provisions on legal aid.
Source excerpt
Explore more
