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 overruled a preliminary objection and held that the civil revision application was properly before it, allowing the matter to proceed on the merits.
The court has no jurisdiction to entertain revision against the decision of the taxing officer; such challenge must be by reference as provided by statute. The application is incompetent and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the respondent administrator was functus officio after the probate was closed, so the appeal failed and was dismissed.
The applicant, as a bona fide purchaser in execution, had a legal interest in the property and was entitled to be heard before the sale was set aside. The district court acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the sale without hearing the applicant, constituting a material irregularity and illegality warranting nullification of its decision.
Source excerpt
The High Court set aside a tribunal execution order made after a suit had been withdrawn, holding there was no executable decree and revision was proper.
The tribunal's execution order was a nullity as it was based on a non-existent decree or order, and the exceptional circumstances justified the applicant's use of revision jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The application is incompetent as it seeks revision of an interlocutory order, which is barred by section 43(2) MCA and section 372(2) CPA. The prayers in the application are related and not opposed, so the omnibus objection fails. The proper order for an incompetent application is to strike it out, not dismiss it.
Source excerpt
The application was struck out for being incompetent as it improperly included as respondents parties who were not parties in the original criminal case, contrary to the requirements for revision jurisdiction. Only parties to the original proceedings should be respondents in a revision application; inclusion of strangers renders the application incurably defective.
Source excerpt
Revision was not a proper remedy as specific remedies to set aside ex-parte decisions and appeal against execution orders were available and not exhausted; application for revision was filed out of time.
Source excerpt
The twelve-month limitation under section 22(4) of the Magistrates' Courts Act applies to the exercise of revision powers by the district court, regardless of whether revision is initiated by the court or a party. However, where the applicant filed for revision within the statutory period and delays were not attributable to them, literal application of the limitation would result in injustice and absurdity. The district court was bound to rehear the application on its merits as previously directed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
