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 held the defendant had directly appointed the plaintiff tax consultant and awarded USD 139,240 plus interest and costs for services rendered.
The High Court held that the defendant had appointed the plaintiff tax consultant, accepted the services, and must pay USD 139,240 plus interest and costs.
The court held that site clearance and tree removal were separate contractual items, and awarded the builder payment, with interest limited and one claim dismissed.
The appellant was only entitled to payment for the external survey (Shs. 775,000) as the internal survey was not payable without obtaining the Right of Occupancy, which was the appellant's responsibility. The respondent had overpaid the appellant by Shs. 1.7 million, but no enforceable order for repayment could be made due to the struck-out counterclaim. Orders for penalties and further payments were set aside as untenable.
Source excerpt
The contract was rescinded by conduct of both parties; neither party established entitlement to damages or quantum meruit payment. Failure to secure a building permit and approved plans was fatal to the contract. Both claim and counter-claim dismissed.
Source excerpt
Plaintiff was not entitled to further payment on quantum meruit as contract was entire and no new agreement to pay for incomplete works could be inferred; frustration was not established as difficulties were foreseeable and within parties' control; plaintiff not entitled to payment for unused materials as relinquishment was supported by consideration; defendant not entitled to recover alleged overpayment as payments were certified by architect with full authority.
Source excerpt
The appellant was only entitled to payment for the external survey (Shs. 775,000) as the internal survey was not payable until a Right of Occupancy was obtained. The respondent's counterclaim for overpayment and penalties, having been struck out, could not be granted. The trial judge erred in ordering repayment and penalties to the respondent. The proper order was judgment for the appellant for Shs. 775,000 and a declaration of overpayment by the respondent of Shs. 1.7 million.
Source excerpt
In a second appeal, the court held there was no deliberate misrepresentation, but the fee charged for services was excessive. The appeal was dismissed.
Explore more
