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 at Mwanza dismissed a labour revision application as time-barred, holding it was filed outside the 42-day limit under section 91.
The High Court dismissed preliminary objections in a land revision matter, holding that objection proceedings under Regulation 23(5) are not governed by Order XXI Rule 62 CPC.
The Court of Appeal struck out a revision application as time-barred, holding that the 60-day limit in rule 65(4) was mandatory and not extended by a certificate of delay.
The application was time barred as the applicant failed to demonstrate timely follow-up or proof of delayed service; the statutory limitation period commenced from the date of delivery, and the application was filed well beyond the prescribed six weeks.
Source excerpt
The fourteen days granted to file the revision expired on a working day (Friday, 29th November 2024). The applicant failed to file within that period, and subsequent non-working days cannot be excluded to extend the limitation period. The application is therefore time barred.
Source excerpt
The delay was technical, not actual, as the applicant filed the initial revision within time but it was struck out for procedural defects. Applicant accounted for the delay and technical delay is a recognized ground for extension of time. Application is merited and granted.
Source excerpt
The application is dismissed as premature because it challenges an interlocutory order (grant of condonation) which does not finally determine the rights of the parties, and is therefore not subject to revision at this stage under Rule 50 of the Labour Court Rules.
Source excerpt
The applicant demonstrated a technical delay as the initial revision was filed within time and promptly re-applied after the application was struck out for a technical defect. Technical delay is a recognized ground for extension of time, and there was no evidence of negligence or unaccounted delay.
Source excerpt
The delay was technical, not actual, as the applicant filed the initial revision within time and only became out of time after it was struck out due to a preliminary objection. Technical delay is an accepted ground for extension of time, and the applicant accounted for the days between receipt of the ruling and filing this application.
Source excerpt
Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient reasons for delay and did not provide supporting evidence for claims of travel and illness; therefore, extension of time cannot be granted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
