Tanzania Case Law

surl v attorney general of republic of burundi application no4 of 2023 arising from appeal no4 of 2022 arising from reference no10 of 2018 2025 eacj 6 3 march 202

Court

EACJ

The application for review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate discovery of new and decisive evidence not previously available with due diligence, and no error apparent on the face of the record was established. The Applicant's arguments were found to be attempts to re-litigate the merits, which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction.

Source excerpt

• Review of judgment
• Land ownership
• Res judicata
• Treaty interpretation
• Discovery of new evidence

Read case analysis

RULING Remigius Ngunja Another vs

Court

TANZLII

Applicants demonstrated technical delay beyond their control and sufficient cause for extension; respondent did not contest; court exercised discretion to grant extension.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Review of judgment
• Technical delay

Read case analysis

Judgement Civ

Court

TANZLII

The High Court dismissed a land review application, holding that the applicant raised appeal issues rather than an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence.

• Review of judgment
• Error apparent on the face of record
• Functus officio
• Land ownership dispute
• Review-of-judgment
• Error-apparent-on-the-face-of-the-record

Read case analysis

sinyoma company limited vs bulyanhulu gold mine limited 2024 tzca 198 19 march 2024

Court

TZCA

The Court of Appeal granted time to seek review, finding an arguable illegality in its earlier judgment because it left party rights and liabilities unclear.

• Extension of time
• Review of judgment
• Illegality as ground for extension
• Right to be heard
• Extension-of-time
• Review-of-judgment

Read case analysis

anna moses chisano vs republic 2024 tzca 167 6 march 2024

Court

TZCA

The Court erred by applying a mandatory life sentence under an amended provision not in force at the time of the offence; the applicable law provided for a maximum, not mandatory, life sentence, and the trial court had discretion to impose a lesser sentence. This error prejudiced the applicant and resulted in a miscarriage of justice, warranting review and substitution of the sentence.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Drug offences
• Review of judgment
• Right to fair hearing

Read case analysis

Juma Egidio vs Paskalia Chipuzi Revision

Court

TANZLII

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the matter was res judicata, as the purported prior decision did not conclusively determine the dispute between the same parties and even referenced a third party as the landowner. On the merits, the court held that the respondent's evidence of ownership was stronger and corroborated, while the applicant failed to call witnesses or provide documentary proof. Accordingly, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Review of judgment
• Res judicata
• Burden of proof
• Land ownership dispute

Read case analysis

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 12 OF 2024 MUSSA MOSSES JOHN 2 OTHERS VS THE REPUBLIC

Court

TANZLII

Applicants failed to account for the entire period of delay and ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse; no sufficient cause was shown to warrant extension of time, and the applicants were not denied the right to be heard.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Review of judgment
• Right to be heard
• Ignorance of law

Read case analysis

Vicent Jacob Maro

Court

TANZLII

No valid consent judgment existed as parties did not sign any agreement; advocates cannot bind parties without written authority; orders for review and rectification were made out of time and without jurisdiction, rendering them nullities.

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial proceedings
• Consent judgment
• Review of judgment
• Child custody
• Maintenance

Read case analysis

tanzlii ocr CIVIL REVIEW 3179 OF 2024 ASHA OMARI MATIMBWA VS SHAMTE RAMADHANI

Court

TANZLII

The applicant failed to demonstrate any manifest error on the face of the record, deprivation of the right to be heard, fraud, or ambiguity in the order. The grounds raised are insufficient for review and amount to dissatisfaction with the decision, which should be addressed by appeal, not review.

Source excerpt

• Review of judgment
• Matrimonial property division
• Right to be heard
• Fraud allegations

Read case analysis

CIVIL APPLICATION NO 209 14 OF 2024 DR LUIS B SHIJA VS KELLU KAMO LUCAS

Court

TANZLII

The application for stay of execution was granted because the applicant met the conditions: the application was made without undue delay, substantial loss was established due to the public health service nature of the property, and the security requirement could be satisfied by a commitment bond to maintain the status quo of the property. The affidavit by counsel was admissible as it disclosed the source of information.

Source excerpt

• Stay of execution
• Review of judgment
• Affidavit requirements
• Security for due performance

Read case analysis