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 demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, namely the advocate's sickness and technical issues with the court's online filing system, both of which were substantiated and not controverted. The applicant accounted for each day of delay and acted diligently. Therefore, extension of time is warranted.
Source excerpt
Illegality in the trial court's proceedings due to absence of certificate from Marriage Conciliation Board suffices as good cause for extension of time; economic hardship not established as exceptional circumstance.
Source excerpt
The High Court refused to extend time to file a matrimonial appeal, holding that a claimed e-filing technical problem was not good cause and the delay was unexplained.
The first appellate court's failure to address the preliminary objection on time limitation before proceeding to the merits constituted a fundamental procedural error, rendering its proceedings, judgment, and decree null and void.
Source excerpt
The Civil Procedure Code does not apply to appeals originating from matrimonial proceedings except where the Law of Marriage Act or its rules are silent. The Law of Marriage Act and Rule 37 of the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules do not require the appellant to attach a copy of the decree to the memorandum of appeal; instead, the subordinate court must transmit the complete record. Therefore, the preliminary objection lacks merit.
Source excerpt
The court held that the decree from the trial court was defective in its title and party descriptions, which could cause confusion in the appellate record. Guided by the overriding objective principle and relevant precedent, the court declined to strike out the appeal and instead granted the appellant leave to rectify the decree in the District Court and file the corrected version within 21 days.
Source excerpt
The appeal was filed in the wrong registry contrary to mandatory procedural requirements under section 80(2) of the Law of Marriage Act and Rule 37(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules, and such a defect cannot be cured by overriding objective principles.
Source excerpt
The appeal was filed beyond the statutory 45-day period after the trial court's decision, and the appellant did not seek or obtain leave to file out of time or account for the delay after her initial appeal was struck out. The law requires strict compliance with limitation periods and procedural remedies for delay, which were not satisfied.
Source excerpt
The appeal is incompetent for failure to comply with the mandatory requirement to file the appeal first in the District Court that made the decision before filing in the High Court, as stipulated by Section 80(2) of the Law of Marriage Act and Rule 37(1) and (3) of the Law of Marriage (Matrimonial Proceedings) Rules. The existence of electronic filing does not override this statutory requirement, and the overriding objective principle cannot be invoked to cure such non-compliance.
Source excerpt
The District Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application for re-admission of the appeal, as the appellant failed to substantiate sufficient cause for non-appearance. The High Court found no basis to interfere with the District Court's decision, as the reasons advanced were unsubstantiated and the law was correctly applied.
Source excerpt
Explore more
