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 struck out because the order sought to be revised was interlocutory and did not finally determine the rights of the parties or dispose of the main suit, thus not revisable under Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the Land Disputes Courts Act, as a specific law, does not prohibit revision of interlocutory orders of the District Land and Housing Tribunal, and that the general prohibition in section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to matters governed by the LADCA. Therefore, the application for revision is competent before the court.
Source excerpt
The impugned CMA ruling was interlocutory as it restored the parties to their original positions and allowed inter-party hearing, thus did not finally determine the dispute. Revision against such interlocutory orders is prohibited by Rule 50 of the Labour Court Rules. The application is struck out for being incompetent.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that a CMA order compelling production of documents was interlocutory, not final. The application for revision was therefore dismissed under Rule 50.
The order striking out the unsigned CMA F1 was interlocutory as it did not finally determine the rights and liabilities of the parties; therefore, the application for revision is not maintainable under Rule 50 of GN. No. 106 of 2007.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a revision application as premature, holding that the challenged ruling was interlocutory and did not finally determine the parties' rights.
The High Court cannot revise interlocutory orders of the District Land and Housing Tribunal that do not determine the dispute to finality. The application for revision was premature and incompetent.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a criminal revision against a subordinate court's prima facie ruling, holding that revision does not lie against an interlocutory order.
The Registrar considered the applicant's affidavit in the ruling on stay of execution; the only pleaded ground for revision lacks merit. New grounds raised in submissions but not pleaded cannot be entertained.
Source excerpt
An application for revision is not competent where it arises from an interlocutory order that does not finally determine the suit, as barred by section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. The impugned ruling striking out the application for leave to appear and defend was interlocutory and did not finally determine the rights of the parties in the main suit. Therefore, the application for revision was incompetent and an abuse of court process.
Source excerpt
Explore more
