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 application was filed after the expiry of the 42-day limitation period without an application for extension of time, rendering it time barred and liable to dismissal.
Source excerpt
The High Court Labour Division struck out a revision application because CMA F.10 was filed out of time without leave and was not served on the respondent.
Applicant failed to provide good cause for the delay as negligence of his advocate is attributable to him, and no apparent illegality was demonstrated on the face of the award.
Source excerpt
A revision does not lie to the High Court from an arbitral award arising from a settlement agreement; the proper remedy is to apply to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) to set aside the award on grounds such as illegality or fraud, and only after such determination can a revision be entertained by the court.
Source excerpt
Evidence received by the CMA without oath or affirmation is invalid, vitiating the proceedings and award; the only remedy is to quash the proceedings and remit the matter for a fresh hearing before another arbitrator.
Source excerpt
Applicants failed to show good cause for the inordinate delay in filing the application for revision. The alleged denial of right to be heard was a result of their own or their advocate's choices, not an illegality apparent on the face of the record. Judicial discretion cannot be exercised in their favour without sufficient cause.
Source excerpt
The existence of two distinct awards by the same arbitrator in the same dispute constitutes an apparent illegality on the face of the record, which is a point of law of sufficient importance justifying the grant of extension of time for the applicant to file a revision.
Source excerpt
The application was struck out because the combined prayers for extension of time and revision were governed by different laws, timelines, and considerations, making their combination in a single application improper and incompetent.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to account for every day of delay and did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the nine-month delay in filing the application. The alleged illegality was not established as a sufficient ground to warrant extension of time. The application was dismissed for lack of good cause.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a labour revision application for failure to properly cite the mandatory enabling provisions, treating the defect as fatal.
Explore more
