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 plaint does not disclose a cause of action against the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th defendants as there are no factual allegations requiring proof by the plaintiff for him to succeed in his suit. Therefore, the preliminary objection is sustained and the plaint is rejected with costs.
Source excerpt
The High Court at Dodoma struck out a land suit as incompetent after the plaintiffs conceded preliminary objections based on pleading defects and lack of proper government notice.
The High Court struck out a land suit after the plaintiff conceded preliminary objections based on defective pleadings and failure to comply with government notice requirements.
The suit is incompetent for failure to comply with mandatory requirements of stating jurisdiction and value of the subject matter in the plaint, and for failure to serve the statutory 90 days' notice to the Government. Both preliminary objections are upheld and the suit is struck out.
Source excerpt
The plaint sufficiently discloses the period when the cause of action arose and describes the disputed land, meeting the requirements of Order VII Rules 1(e) and 3. The omission to annex documents is curable and does not warrant striking out the suit. Locus standi and cause of action objections require evidence and are not pure points of law. However, as to the 2nd defendant, the suit is res subjudice due to a pending appeal on the same subject matter between the same parties, and thus cannot be entertained against him.
Source excerpt
The court held that it has jurisdiction as the claim is for rent arrears under a lease agreement, which falls within land matters. However, the plaint fails to specifically plead particulars of misrepresentation or fraud against the 2nd defendant, and the 2nd defendant appears to be wrongly joined. Rather than striking out the suit, the court directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to cure these defects.
Source excerpt
The plaint failed to explicitly disclose the value of the disputed landed property as required by Order VII Rule 1(i) of the Civil Procedure Code and Rule 4 of the Court Fees Rules, 2018. Reliance on mesne profits and loss of opportunity does not satisfy the statutory requirement to state the value of the subject matter. The omission rendered the suit incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Source excerpt
Failure to plead and annex a board resolution in the plaint does not render the suit incompetent where the resolution is annexed in the reply to the written statement of defence, and the suit involves two plaintiffs, one of whom is a natural person not requiring a board resolution. The preliminary objection cannot dispose of the entire suit and is therefore overruled.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land suit because the plaint did not sufficiently describe the suit land’s boundaries, making the property uncertain for execution.
High Court ruling on preliminary objections in a contract debt suit: limitation was held defeated by acknowledgments of debt, and both sides’ objections were overruled.
Explore more
