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, holding that amendments to the Land Disputes Courts Act operated prospectively and did not invalidate an earlier ward tribunal decision.
The Ward Tribunal was not properly constituted as required by law, with inconsistent quorum and lack of gender specification, rendering its proceedings and decision a nullity and depriving it of jurisdiction to try the case. The District Land and Housing Tribunal failed to address this illegality. The amendment to the law did not retrospectively affect the case since substantive justice had been reached before the amendment's publication.
Source excerpt
The application for condonation was improperly filed under a law not in force at the time the dispute arose; proceedings at CMA were a nullity and the ruling granting condonation cannot stand.
Source excerpt
The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time based on the apparent illegality in the appellate Tribunal's decision, specifically the retrospective application of an amendment to the Land Disputes Courts Act. The applicant acted diligently upon discovering the illegality, and procedural objections raised by the respondent were unfounded or curable. Extension of time is warranted to allow the alleged illegality to be addressed on appeal.
Source excerpt
The District Land and Housing Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application for extension of time to appeal on a matter originating from the Ward Tribunal after the repeal of section 20(2) of the LDCA by section 47 of the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2021. The repeal is procedural and applies retrospectively. The tribunal did not err in raising the issue of jurisdiction, as both parties were afforded the right to be heard.
Source excerpt
High Court labour revision partly allowed: only PW2’s testimony was nullified for lack of signature, and the CMA matter was remitted for rehearing.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding the case was not premature, the appellants failed to prove purchase or adverse possession, and ownership was proved on balance of probabilities.
TAZARA is a public entity as it is a statutory corporation wholly owned and controlled by the governments of Tanzania and Zambia, established through domestication of a bilateral treaty. The CMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed after the enactment of the Written Laws Miscellaneous Amendment Act No. 13 of 2016, which requires exhaustion of remedies under the Public Service Act. Procedural amendments apply to actions filed after their commencement, regardless of when the cause of action arose.
Source excerpt
The amendments to section 19(4) of the Tanzania Investment Act by the Finance Act, 2013 did not apply retrospectively to the respondent's certificate of incentive issued before the amendment. The certificate of incentive is an agreement protected by section 19(2), and the respondent was entitled to 100% import duty exemption for the protected period. The Customs Tariff Act, 1976 remained applicable for exemptions not addressed by EACCMA, 2004.
Source excerpt
The appellant proved ownership of the disputed land on a balance of probabilities, having acquired it before the Land Act via oral contract and used it undisturbed for decades. The trial tribunal erred by disregarding assessors' opinions and applying inapplicable legal provisions retrospectively. The respondent's failure to cross-examine the appellant on key facts amounted to admission.
Source excerpt
Explore more
