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 for discovery was filed without leave of the court to depart from the scheduling order, contravening Order VIII, Rule 23 of the CPC. Therefore, the application is incompetent and must be struck out with costs.
Source excerpt
The High Court declined to implead New Kimamba Fibres Limited and Managing Miyombo Systems, holding they were not necessary parties and dismissing that request with costs.
Application for departure from scheduling order and amendment of Written Statement of Defence was made after hearing had commenced and witness statements served; this contravenes mandatory conditions for such orders and would prejudice the Respondent, amounting to abuse of process.
Source excerpt
The High Court refused a late application to amend pleadings, finding no good cause or diligence, but allowed the plaintiffs to seek an injunction within 14 days.
The High Court partly allowed a security for costs application, ordering Leighton Offshore PTE Limited to deposit USD 125,000 and refusing departure from the scheduling order.
The High Court partly upheld objections to late-filed additional documents, expunging the list of additional documents, but allowed notices to produce to stand.
The Land Division refused leave to amend a written statement of defence after hearing had begun, finding the change would introduce new facts, cause delay, and prejudice the respondent.
The High Court dismissed an application to depart from a scheduling order and seek interrogatories and discovery, finding the requests too general and not bona fide.
The applicant showed good cause for the belated production of documents, as the completion for disposition occurred after the Final Pre-Trial Conference and amidst the trial. The law allows belated production under Order XIII Rule 2 of the CPC, and there was no need to depart from the scheduling order since the application does not alter it.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an application to review its earlier order, holding that the applicant showed no new evidence, error apparent, or other sufficient reason.
Explore more
