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 dismissed a land appeal, holding that prior dismissals for want of prosecution were not on the merits, but the fresh suit used the same causes of action.
The suit is incompetent and an abuse of court process as it was filed while Land Application No. 31 of 2023, involving the same parties and subject matter, is ongoing at the District Land and Housing Tribunal, thus contravening the principle of res sub judice. The court therefore struck out the matter for being incompetent with costs.
Source excerpt
The High Court stayed this commercial suit as res sub judice to an earlier land case pending appeal at the Court of Appeal of Tanzania.
The application is dismissed for being res sub judice as there are pending cases in the High Court at Dodoma involving the same subject matter and substantially the same parties, making the current application unmaintainable.
Source excerpt
The application was struck out for being incompetent as the applicants failed to comply with the prior court order requiring them to file for restoration of Misc. Land Application No. 812 of 2022, and instead improperly sought extension of time for the same reliefs, amounting to abuse of court process and non-compliance with lawful orders.
Source excerpt
The essential conditions for the application of res sub judice have not been met because the matters in issue in the two cases are not directly and substantially the same, and the District Land and Housing Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought in the present suit. Therefore, the preliminary objection is overruled and the suit shall proceed to trial.
Source excerpt
The District Court of Dodoma lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine the revision application against the ex parte judgment of the Primary Court; the proper procedure was for the respondent to apply to set aside the ex parte judgment in the Primary Court itself.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out NMB Bank’s appeal as incompetent because the High Court ruling on a preliminary objection was interlocutory and not appealable.
The High Court struck out a commercial suit over a claimed decree amount, holding the plaintiff lacked locus standi and the matter was premature and procedurally improper.
Contempt proceedings are not subject to the 60-day limitation under Item 21 but fall under Item 20, allowing 12 years for enforcement of court orders; preliminary objections based on time bar, res sub judice, and being overtaken by events fail as contempt proceedings are sui generis and not affected by withdrawal of the originating application or pending revision; factual issues regarding party status do not qualify as preliminary objections.
Source excerpt
Explore more
