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 applicant failed to account for the period between 16th July 2024 and 2nd August 2024 after the first review application was struck out, thus not meeting the requirement to account for each day of delay. Consequently, sufficient cause for extension of time was not established.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a review application, finding no manifest error or denial of hearing. It held the earlier decision was properly dismissed, not struck out.
The High Court dismissed an application for review, finding a paragraph-numbering error in the earlier ruling did not cause miscarriage of justice.
The High Court Labour Division dismissed an application for extension of time to seek review, finding no sufficient reason for delay and doubting the medical evidence.
The ground raised by the applicants seeks to re-assess evidence and is an appeal in disguise; the court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to review its own decision in these circumstances.
Source excerpt
The delay of 18 days was not inordinate given the number of applicants and their demonstrated diligence in pursuing the review. The applicants' efforts and lack of prejudice to the respondent justified granting the extension of time.
Source excerpt
The application for review is incompetent because the drawn order is dated differently from the ruling, contrary to mandatory procedural requirements. The only remedy is to strike out the application.
Source excerpt
The application for review was dismissed because the court found that Annexure Soni 2 and Soni 12 were specifically considered and discussed in the original ruling. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that review cannot be used to re-argue the merits of the case or as an appeal in disguise.
Source excerpt
Applicant failed to demonstrate a manifest error on the face of the record or denial of the right to be heard; the grounds raised were appealable, not reviewable, and did not meet the legal threshold for review.
Source excerpt
The applicant sufficiently accounted for the delay in filing the review by demonstrating persistent efforts to obtain the ruling, which was only accessed on 27th February 2024, and thus established reasonable or sufficient cause for extension of time under the Law of Limitation Act.
Source excerpt
Explore more
