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 amendment to the Government Proceedings Act does not apply retrospectively to proceedings instituted before its commencement, and the trial tribunal was bound to comply with the Court of Appeal's retrial order; failure to do so was an error.
Source excerpt
The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, as it was due to ongoing related litigation and not negligence. The raised issues of illegality, including non-joinder of necessary parties and statutory compliance, warrant determination on appeal. Therefore, extension of time is justified.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a land appeal, holding that striking out the case for failure to join the Attorney General was wrong where the suit had already substantially progressed.
The court has jurisdiction because the cause of action arose before the enactment of Section 32A of the Public Service Act, which does not apply retrospectively. The applicant provided sufficient explanation for the delay, and the mediator erred by denying condonation when similar cases were granted it on the same grounds.
Source excerpt
The amendment to Section 13 of the Land Disputes Courts Act, which limited Ward Tribunals to mediation only, came into effect after the Ward Tribunal's decision. There is no clear legislative intent for retrospective application to concluded cases. Therefore, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in nullifying the Ward Tribunal's decision for lack of jurisdiction. Procedural defects in the appeal did not occasion a failure of justice and were disregarded.
Source excerpt
Payments made by a resident in Tanzania to a non-resident for services rendered outside Tanzania but utilized in Tanzania are subject to withholding tax under sections 6(1)(b), 69(i)(i), and 83(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 2004; amendments in 2016 and 2020 clarified the law and did not change its substance.
Source excerpt
Since the employment dispute arose before the amendment of the Public Service Act in November 2016, Section 32A does not apply, and the CMA had jurisdiction. Revision Application No. 130 of 2021 was filed out of time without leave and must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
The CMA had jurisdiction as the amendments to the Public Service Act did not apply retrospectively to disputes filed before their commencement. However, the respondent's advocate had a conflict of interest due to his former position as Company Secretary of the applicant, which contravened professional conduct regulations. This conflict tainted the proceedings, warranting the quashing of the CMA proceedings and award, and remitting the matter for a fresh hearing before a different arbitrator, with the advocate barred from further representation in the matter.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that section 32A of the Public Service Act did not retrospectively bar the appellant’s CMA complaint and that the CMA had jurisdiction.
The CMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed on 29 November 2016 because Section 32A of the Public Service Act, effective from 18 November 2016, required exhaustion of internal remedies by public servants before approaching labour forums. The second complaint was a new matter, not a continuation of the first, and the High Court erred in holding otherwise.
Source excerpt
Explore more
