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 is entitled to a Mareva Injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing or interfering with the disputed land until the statutory notice to sue expires, as all procedural requirements have been met and the respondents do not oppose the application.
Source excerpt
Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case as they did not provide evidence of ownership of the disputed land. Without proof of ownership, irreparable loss and balance of convenience cannot be established. All conditions for granting Mareva injunction must be met, and applicants failed to satisfy them.
Source excerpt
The applicant lacked locus standi to seek interim orders regarding assets owned by Reef Gold Limited, a separate corporate entity. Jurisdictional issues such as locus standi can be determined without formal pleadings, and the parties were fully heard. Clerical and editorial errors in the ruling were immaterial and did not affect substantive rights. No new evidence or fraud was established to justify review. The application for review was incompetent and demerited.
Source excerpt
Applicant, as shareholder, lacks locus standi to institute proceedings or seek interim orders regarding assets of Reef Gold Limited; only the company itself can enforce rights over its mining licences. Application for Mareva injunction and interim orders is incompetent and not maintainable.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division dismissed a Mareva injunction application, holding the applicants failed to plead and prove specific irreparable loss.
The High Court overruled a preliminary objection, holding that statutory notice to sue the Government was not a prerequisite for a Mareva injunction application.
Applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case, ongoing or imminent threat to property, or irreparable loss not compensable by damages. Respondents' evidence was uncontroverted. Public interest in use of the road outweighs applicant's individual interest. All conditions for mareva injunction were not met.
Source excerpt
The court's prior order granting a Mareva injunction pending determination of a suit to be filed was an error apparent on the face of the record, as the court's jurisdiction was limited to granting an injunction only until the expiry of the 90 days' statutory notice. The order is rectified to restrain the applicants only until expiry of the statutory notice, not until determination of a suit yet to be instituted.
Source excerpt
The status quo order issued on 7.11.2022 was intended to last only until the applicant filed a suit and application for temporary injunction, or for 90 days, not indefinitely. The applicant failed to file the required application, thereby waiving protection. Even assuming the order remained valid, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the 1st respondent violated the order, as the photos and videos lacked dates and proof of changes after the order. The application is without merit and is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The High Court of Tanzania refused a temporary injunction sought to stop eviction of cattle from Sakaya Natural Forest Reserve, prioritizing environmental protection.
Explore more
