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 struck out a joint judicial review leave application by three former Tanzania Railways employees, holding their separate disciplinary histories created no joint interest.
The High Court struck out an application for judicial review because the applicant sought prerogative orders without first obtaining leave, as required by rule 5(1).
The applicant failed to establish an arguable case because he did not provide the alleged resignation letter or sufficient proof of its effectiveness. Without this critical document, the court could not determine whether there was a genuine and justiciable issue warranting judicial intervention. Judicial review is discretionary and requires clear, sufficient grounds, which were not met in this application.
Source excerpt
The application is incompetent as there is no decision by the second or third respondents subject to judicial review, and the dispute arises from a contractual relationship for which judicial review is not the proper remedy.
Source excerpt
The applicant demonstrated an arguable case regarding the legality of the seizure and fining of his cattle, sufficient interest as a recurrently affected party, and timely filing within the prescribed period. Leave to apply for judicial review for an order of prohibition is therefore granted.
Source excerpt
The Minister for Constitutional and Legal Affairs no longer has the power to grant an extension of time under Section 44(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, as the provision has been declared unconstitutional and void by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the application for prerogative orders is dismissed as there is no longer a valid legal basis for the Minister's exercise of such power.
Source excerpt
The application failed because the applicant did not establish an arguable case or sufficient interest, as the issue of ownership of the disputed plot was unresolved and not within the jurisdiction of the current proceedings. Only the timeliness condition was met, which is insufficient as all three conditions must be satisfied cumulatively.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against refusal of extension of time to seek judicial review, holding that 41 days of delay were not adequately explained.
The High Court dismissed a preliminary objection that the applicant had not exhausted remedies under the National Defence Act before seeking judicial review.
Omission to plead all prerogative orders for which leave was granted does not render the application incompetent; an applicant may abandon some orders, provided no new orders are introduced beyond those for which leave was granted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
