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 allowed a land appeal, quashing a tribunal dismissal entered on the first hearing day and restoring the application for hearing before another chairperson.
The DLHT erred in dismissing the application solely based on perceived lack of interest by the appellant, ignoring that delays were not one-sided and the appellant showed intent to prosecute. The DLHT should have adjourned the matter as prayed and not punished the appellant for his advocate's failures. The appeal was filed within the statutory period after proper exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a land appeal, finding the tribunal unfairly struck out the application and denied the appellant an adjournment despite earlier adjournments to the respondents.
Applicant's advocate's absence to take dock briefs was a sufficient reason, despite negligence in failing to notify the court, given the practice of belated assignment and preference for dock briefs.
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 High Court dismissed an application to extend time to challenge a dismissal order, finding the applicant failed to account for the delay or prove sufficient cause.
The High Court Labour Division dismissed an application for extension of time because the applicant failed to explain a delay of at least 98 days.
The Tribunal unlawfully dismissed Application No. 128 of 2023 for want of prosecution after only twenty-one days of non-attendance, contrary to Regulation 15(a) which requires three months; thus, both the dismissal and refusal to restore were erroneous and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Source excerpt
The affidavit supporting the application is invalid due to a fatal defect in the verification clause, as the name of the deponent in the verification clause differs from that in the opening clause, and no evidence was provided to explain the discrepancy. As a result, the application is incompetent and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division rejected preliminary objections but dismissed an application to set aside a prior dismissal order, finding insufficient reasons for non-appearance.
Explore more
