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
Failure to join necessary parties at the time of filing renders the suit incompetent and warrants striking out rather than amendment.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land revision application as incompetent, holding that an appeal was the proper remedy and no exceptional reason for revision was shown.
The application is struck out because the supporting affidavit is defective due to improper verification; the deponent, an advocate, claimed personal knowledge of facts that were actually based on information from the applicant, without specifying the source as required by law. This defect renders the application incompetent.
Source excerpt
The application was incompetent as the appeal was struck out for want of a petition of appeal, not dismissed for non-appearance. The applicant failed to attach the necessary order and supporting affidavits, and the court was not properly moved under the cited legal provisions. There was no competent appeal to restore.
Source excerpt
The application is incompetent because it combines prayers governed by different legal regimes (Probate and Administration of Estates Act and Civil Procedure Code) that are not sufficiently interrelated; such omnibus applications are improper and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The CMA proceedings were based on a defective and incompetent referral form (CMA F1), rendering the entire proceedings and resulting award a nullity. The court nullified the CMA proceedings and quashed and set aside the award.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out an extension-of-time application as incompetent because the required notice to seek revision had been filed out of time and without leave.
The High Court struck out a land application as omnibus because it combined leave to appeal and certification of points of law in one summons.
The application was struck out because it combined two distinct and unrelated prayers (extension of time and certification on point of law) in a single application, which is not permitted by law or precedent.
Source excerpt
Combining two unrelated prayers in one application is procedurally impermissible and renders the application incompetent; the only remedy is to strike out the application, and the overriding objective principle cannot be invoked to cure such a defect.
Source excerpt
Explore more
