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 an application for extension of time to appeal, holding it was brought under the wrong provision of law and was incompetent.
The High Court struck out a land revision application for incompetence because it was filed under the wrong legal provisions and was not properly before the Court.
The application was incompetent as it was brought under the wrong provision of law, failing to properly move the court for the relief sought.
Source excerpt
The application was struck out because it was brought under wrong and inapplicable provisions of the law, which is a fundamental error that prevents the court from being properly moved.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out an application for leave to defend a mortgage recovery summary suit after finding the applicants cited the wrong procedural provisions.
Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code is the correct provision to support an application for extension of time to file witness statements where the Rules and the CPC are silent; section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act and section 93 of the CPC do not apply; the phrase 'any other enabling provision of the law' cannot support the application.
Source excerpt
The Rules prescribe the time for filing witness statements but are silent on the procedure for extension of time. Rule 2(1) allows resort to the CPC, but the CPC does not specifically provide for extension of time to file witness statements. Therefore, section 95 of the CPC, which deals with the inherent powers of the court, is the correct provision to support such an application. Section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act and section 93 of the CPC are not applicable to this situation.
Source excerpt
The application was struck out for failure to cite the relevant provisions of law, rendering it incompetent, and for procedural irregularities regarding the appointment of Guardian Ad Litem and submission of the Social Investigation Report.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out two consolidated applications because the applicants cited the wrong provisions when seeking joinder as interested parties.
The applications are incompetent because the applicants failed to cite the specific and proper provision (Rule 109(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009) that confers jurisdiction on the Court to grant the relief sought. Citing inapplicable provisions renders the applications fatally defective.
Source excerpt
Explore more
