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 held that the respondents’ preliminary objection notice lacked sufficient particulars and allowed them to amend it by 14 March 2025.
The High Court dismissed an appeal seeking to make an insurer satisfy a judgment, holding that notice of the later suit was not proved under section 10(2)(a).
The High Court held the plaintiff’s property was mortgaged to secure a loan to the second defendant, but the auction process was unlawful for failure to serve mandatory notices.
The sale was set aside because the applicant, as judgment debtor, was not properly served with notice of sale as required by law, constituting a material irregularity that undermined her right to be heard and tainted the execution process.
Source excerpt
The appellant was not duly served with a notice of default as required by the mortgage deed and section 127(1) of the Land Act; however, the 4th respondent, having acquired registered title as a bonafide purchaser for value, is protected under section 135 of the Land Act, and the sale cannot be set aside in absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld the legality of a mortgage sale, finding notice requirements substantially complied with and the buyer protected as lawful owner.
The High Court upheld a mortgage sale by auction, finding proper notice, lawful publicity, and no proved fraud or collusion. The plaintiff’s suit and damages claims were dismissed.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal over eviction from rented premises, holding that notice had been served, the eviction was lawful, and the evidence favored the respondents.
There is no triable issue between the parties as the relationship is contractual guarantee, not mortgage. Applicants failed to establish all three mandatory conditions for temporary injunction. Notices and reminders were served, and applicants defaulted. Application for Mareva injunction is dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
The High Court Labour Division struck out a revision application because CMA F.10 was filed out of time without leave and was not served on the respondent.
Explore more
