RUHINDA JUDGMENT
The High Court allowed CRDB Bank’s appeal, finding the first respondent was not proved to live in the mortgaged house and the bank was not negligent.
- Matrimonial home
- Spousal consent
- Mortgage
- Collateral
- Negligence
- Matrimonial-home
Tanzania Source-linked decisions Coverage checked
Tanzania Case Law
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
- Courts on this page
- 1 court collection
- Last checked
Search and filter Tanzania case law
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
MAXCARL
The High Court entered a consent judgment after the parties settled. The defendants will pay TZS 92 million, and the plaintiff abandoned a prior TASAC award.
- Settlement
- Damages
- Negligence
- Consent judgment
- Consent-judgment
- Civil-procedure
MBWAMBO JUDGMNET EDITED FINAL NOW
The appellant proved entitlement to medical and funeral expenses but failed to strictly prove the claim for pecuniary benefit. The general damages awarded by the trial court were justified given the lack of further evidence. The interest awarded by the trial court was incorrect and is replaced with the statutory court rate of 7% per annum from the date of judgment to payment. The appeal is dismissed except for the adjustment of interest and reasoning for general damages.
Source excerpt
- Negligence
- Damages
- Burden of proof
- Interest on judgment debt
- Appeals
AJUAYE AINEA
The High Court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for a road accident and awarded transport costs and general damages, while rejecting other special damage claims.
- Negligence
- Vicarious liability
- Damages
- Road traffic accident
- Employer's liability
- Vicarious-liability
23
The High Court dismissed an appeal over alleged security negligence, holding that crucial exhibits were not properly read in court and the appellant failed to prove its claim.
- Negligence
- Breach of contract
- Evidence admissibility
- Indemnity
- Burden of proof
- Breach-of-contract
GURDEEP AZIMAL CBD HOTEL 9429
The appellant failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the respondent owed and breached a duty of care, or that the breach caused actionable injury. The evidence did not substantiate the claims, and the burden of proof was not discharged.
Source excerpt
- Negligence
- Duty of care
- Breach of contract
- Standard of proof
- Burden of proof
CIVIL APPEAL NO 4010 OF 2024 JULICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
Trial court erred by awarding refund, compensation, and punitive damages not pleaded or proved; respondent defaulted on loan, appellant entitled to recover outstanding balance and penal interest; counterclaim dismissal was improper; insufficient evidence to support repair or replacement orders for vehicle.
Source excerpt
- Loan agreements
- Breach of contract
- Damages
- Counterclaim
- Negligence
- Pleadings
Misc
The delay was not inordinate and was caused by technical grounds; applicant acted promptly after appeal was struck out and upon receiving ruling. Technical delay is sufficient cause for extension of time.
Source excerpt
- Extension of time
- Appeals
- Technical delay
- Negligence
CIVIL CASE NO
Failure to properly serve and prove service of the ninety-day notice as required by section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act deprives the Court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit; the suit must be struck out.
Source excerpt
- Preliminary objection
- Notice requirement
- Jurisdiction
- Negligence
Judgement DC
Appellant failed to account for the entire period of delay and did not demonstrate good cause; being unaware of proceedings does not constitute technical delay. The trial court correctly dismissed the application for extension of time.
Source excerpt
- Extension of time
- Forfeiture
- Technical delay
- Negligence
Explore more