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 granted an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal, finding the applicants had accounted for the delay and acted promptly after the appeal was struck out.
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania granted extension of time to appeal, holding the delay was technical because the applicant had been pursuing earlier appeals in good faith.
The High Court granted an application to extend time for serving a letter requesting copies of judgment, decree, and proceedings, with costs in the cause.
The High Court refused to extend time to appeal a Temeke DLHT decision, holding the delay was caused by counsel’s negligence rather than technical delay.
The court found that the applicant's delay was technical, not negligent, as the original application was filed on time but withdrawn for incompetence. The applicant acted diligently in pursuing rights, and should not be punished for counsel's procedural error. Extension of time was justified.
Source excerpt
Appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for extension of time due to lack of diligence and failure to account for each day of delay; no illegality or denial of right to be heard was established; Tribunal had jurisdiction as amendments requiring joinder of Attorney General were not retrospective.
Source excerpt
The High Court Labour Division dismissed an application to extend time to lodge a notice of appeal, finding no sufficient cause and treating the delay as counsel’s negligence.
The applicants demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, as the delay was due to their advocate's negligence rather than their own, and they acted promptly upon learning of the ruling. The combination of prayers in one application was permissible as they were interrelated. Extension of time was therefore justified.
Source excerpt
The respondent failed to show sufficient cause for non-appearance; traffic jam and rainfall are not valid grounds; the arbitrator erred by restoring the dispute based on negligence of counsel, which was not pleaded or supported by evidence, and by raising the issue suo moto without affording parties the right to be heard.
Source excerpt
Applicants failed to show sufficient cause for the delay, did not account for each day, and the repeated negligence of counsel cannot be excused; technical delay and alleged court errors were not substantiated.
Source excerpt
Explore more
