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 held that the first and second defendants unlawfully denied access to a hunting block, and awarded general damages for false imprisonment and denial of access.
The applicants' grievance concerns allocation of village land, which is a land dispute subject to the dispute resolution mechanisms under the Village Land Act. The applicants failed to exhaust available remedies before approaching the High Court. Therefore, the application is incompetent for being prematurely filed without exhausting statutory remedies.
Source excerpt
The High Court quashed a CMA award after finding exhibits were improperly admitted without proper objection procedures, vitiating the proceedings and requiring a trial de novo.
The applicant established arguable grounds for judicial review, filed within the prescribed time, and demonstrated sufficient interest. The application for leave to apply for judicial review is meritorious and is granted.
Source excerpt
Given the urgency and the need to maintain the status quo, and considering the lack of alternative accommodation for affected residents, the court found it appropriate to suspend the operation of the impugned government notice and eviction order pending determination of the application for leave to apply for judicial review.
Source excerpt
The commanding officer failed to enter punishment as required by law before the Applicants appealed to the Inspector General of Police. The Inspector General's decision to dismiss was illegal as it was issued without proper procedural foundation. The Applicants were not supplied with inquiry proceedings prior to filing the application, violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The impugned dismissal decision is quashed for procedural illegality.
Source excerpt
The 2nd Respondent acted ultra vires by dismissing the appeal for being filed out of time instead of rejecting it as required by Rule 17(1) of the Public Procurement Appeals Rules, 2014. Dismissal precludes the Applicant from refiling, whereas rejection would have allowed rectification. The decision was therefore irrational and contrary to procedural law, warranting its quashing and setting aside.
Source excerpt
The decision to call the EGM was illegal and tainted with procedural impropriety due to failure to comply with statutory notice and document circulation requirements, and improper signing of the notice.
Source excerpt
The application has not outlived its relevancy as pertinent issues regarding notice issuance, notice period, and circulation of meeting papers remain pending for determination; therefore, it cannot be said to have been overtaken by time.
Source excerpt
Explore more
