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 granted an application to extend time to file an appeal, holding that late receipt of the judgment and prior technical delay justified discretion.
Victim's evidence was credible and corroborated; appellant failed to prove medical incapacity; prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; no procedural violation affecting justice.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the trial Tribunal's decision was based on oral evidence, not on the disputed documents; the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the land ownership dispute; locus in quo procedures were properly followed; and the judgment complied with legal requirements for content and precedent.
Source excerpt
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal that challenges decisions of both the Ward Tribunal and the District Land and Housing Tribunal simultaneously; such an appeal is incompetent and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against refusal to extend time to appeal, holding that illness was not shown to be sufficient cause for the long delay.
The words and letters complained of were not inherently defamatory, and even if they could be construed as defamatory, they were published in the context of official communications to persons with a legitimate interest, protected by qualified privilege. No malice was established. The complainant failed to prove defamation or entitlement to damages.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal after finding the appellant raised new grounds that had not been canvassed before the lower tribunal.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused trafficked in narcotic drugs due to lack of corroborative evidence, failure to call essential witnesses, unreliable confession, absence of independent witnesses during search and seizure, and non-compliance with statutory disposal procedures.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that factual averments in a counter affidavit cannot be challenged except by another affidavit, limiting the respondents to legal arguments only.
The High Court held that factual averments in affidavits must be challenged by affidavit, not by cross-examination alone; respondents could cross-examine only on points of law.
Explore more
