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 Court of Appeal dismissed a reference challenging refusal to extend time for review, holding the alleged illegalities were not intrinsic to its judgment.
The alleged errors raised by the applicants are not apparent on the face of the record, as they involve matters of law and require elaborate argument. No material error or injustice was established to warrant the exercise of revisional powers by the High Court. The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
The alleged errors raised by the applicants are not apparent on the face of the record as they require elaborate argument and pertain to matters of law, not obvious mistakes. No material error or injustice was established to warrant revision under the applicable statutes.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal dismissed a review application, holding it had jurisdiction to hear the labour appeal and did not re-evaluate facts beyond the law.
The grounds advanced by the applicants do not meet the threshold for review as they are not manifest errors apparent on the face of the record but are grounds for appeal; the applicants seek a second opinion on matters already adjudicated, which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the review application as the award of transport allowance was an error apparent on the face of the record, not pleaded or argued by the parties, and thus reviewable. The successor judge was entitled to preside over the review due to the original judge's unavailability, and the appellant was not prejudiced as he was informed during preliminary objections. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a review application as time-barred, procedurally improper, and supported by a defective affidavit, awarding costs to the respondents.
The High Court struck out a land review application as time-barred, holding that the 30-day limitation period ran from the date of decision, not later notification.
The application for review was dismissed because the alleged errors were not manifest or apparent on the face of the record, but would require elaborate argument to establish. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the decision did not constitute a ground for review, and the decision was not a nullity.
Source excerpt
The Application for Review does not meet the requirement regarding new evidence, as the documents submitted were either previously considered or do not constitute new evidence capable of affecting the initial judgment. Therefore, the Application is inadmissible under Rule 67(1) of the Rules of Court.
Source excerpt
Explore more
