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 struck out a land appeal as time-barred, holding it was filed 10 days after the 45-day statutory limit under section 41(2) of the Land Dispute Court Act.
The High Court at Mwanza dismissed a labour revision application as time-barred, holding it was filed outside the 42-day limit under section 91.
The tribunal's execution order was a nullity as it was based on a non-existent decree or order, and the exceptional circumstances justified the applicant's use of revision jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, did not account for all days of delay, and did not establish that the ruling and drawn order were necessary prerequisites for filing the application for judicial review. The law does not require attachment of the ruling or drawn order, and the applicant's inaction and negligence do not justify extension of time.
Source excerpt
The application failed because the applicant did not establish an arguable case or sufficient interest, as the issue of ownership of the disputed plot was unresolved and not within the jurisdiction of the current proceedings. Only the timeliness condition was met, which is insufficient as all three conditions must be satisfied cumulatively.
Source excerpt
The cause of action arose on 24/05/2022 when the fixed term contract expired. The dispute was filed at the CMA on 12/08/2022, 79 days after the cause of action, exceeding both the 30-day and 60-day limitation periods. There was no evidence the Applicant continued to work after contract expiry. The application was time barred and properly dismissed by the Arbitrator.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out a revision application as time-barred, holding that the 60-day limit in rule 65(4) was mandatory and not extended by a certificate of delay.
The dispute was filed at CMA out of time without condonation; CMA had no jurisdiction, rendering all proceedings and award a nullity.
Source excerpt
The application for stay of execution was filed outside the mandatory fourteen-day period from the date of service of the notice of execution, rendering it incompetent.
Source excerpt
The applicant was prevented from executing the reinstatement order due to pending appellate proceedings, and the period spent in court corridors should be excluded from the limitation period. The applicant has shown good cause for the delay, and the extension of time is warranted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
