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 appeal was struck out as incompetent due to a procedural defect in the first appellate court's proceedings, specifically the misnaming of the case type, which fundamentally undermined the competence of the appeal and could not be rectified by amendment.
Source excerpt
The appeal was struck out due to failure to sue the respondent in his correct capacity as administrator of the estate of late Bahati Gomba, as required by law and procedure.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a temporary injunction application in a land dispute after finding it incompetent because the applicant did not specify the exact relief sought.
The application was brought under the wrong provision of law, as section 47(3) of the Land Disputes Courts Act is the specific provision required for appeals originating from the Ward Tribunal. Citing only the general provision of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act is insufficient and renders the application incompetent.
Source excerpt
The notice of appeal was incurably defective for failing to properly state the nature of the offence, rendering the appeal incompetent and requiring it to be struck out.
Source excerpt
The notice of appeal was incurably defective for failing to indicate the correct case number, rendering the appeal incompetent.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out a criminal appeal as incompetent because the Notice of Appeal omitted the number of the decision challenged.
The Notice of Appeal failed to indicate the correct registration number of the case, violating mandatory procedural requirements and rendering the appeal incompetent.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out a criminal appeal because the notice of appeal cited the wrong High Court case number, leaving no valid appeal before the court.
The notice of appeal was incurably defective as it failed to specify the correct order being appealed against, contrary to Rule 61(2), rendering the appeal incompetent and necessitating its striking out.
Source excerpt
Explore more
