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 application was struck out for incompetence due to failure to cite the enabling provision of law empowering the court to grant leave to appeal; this defect is fatal and cannot be cured by the overriding objective principle.
Source excerpt
High Court struck out a criminal revision application as incompetent because it challenged an interlocutory order and was filed under the wrong statutory provision.
The application was brought under the wrong legal provisions, and since there is a specific statutory provision for extension of time in land matters, the court was not properly moved; this defect is not curable by the overriding objective principle.
Source excerpt
The tribunal, upon finding the application was brought under the wrong provision of law, should have struck it out as incompetent rather than dismissing it. Dismissal implies a competent application was disposed of on merits, which was not the case here. The tribunal also erred by proceeding to determine the merits after finding the application incompetent and by not giving parties the right to be heard on the preliminary issue.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division dismissed an application to set aside a dismissal order, holding it was filed 14 days out of time and no extension had been sought.
The application is time barred as it was filed years after the relevant decisions without extension of time, and it was brought under the wrong provision of law, which is fatal and deprives the court of jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The applicant was not negligent, complied with court orders, and attended all sessions. The court's scheduling order was general and did not specify that the preliminary objection be argued first. The right to be heard was not accorded, and the improper citation was a minor error not affecting competence. Restoration is warranted.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division struck out a land application because it was brought under a non-existent procedural provision, finding the court was not properly moved.
The application was brought under the wrong provisions of law, rendering it incompetent; the court was not properly moved and thus the application must be struck out with costs.
Source excerpt
The application was incompetent because the applicants relied on Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, which does not empower the court to grant representative status in interlocutory proceedings; thus, the court was wrongly moved and the application must be struck out.
Source excerpt
Explore more
