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 Mbeya dismissed Kinison Singoi’s application for stay of execution, holding that the mandatory requirement of security for due performance was not met.
The appeal was dismissed because it challenged an interlocutory order, which is not appealable under section 74(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. Additionally, the application for security for costs was misplaced as it arose from probate proceedings, where costs are recoverable from the estate and not from administrators personally.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an application for attachment before judgment, holding that the applicant failed to prove intent to dispose of assets or meet the CPC requirements.
Applicant failed to advance sufficient cause for delay; affidavit evidence was hearsay, no medical proof of sickness, and alleged illegalities were not substantiated or apparent on the face of record. Delay was inordinate and unaccounted for.
Source excerpt
The applicant's delay was only one day, was promptly explained, and did not prejudice the respondent. The applicant showed diligence and willingness to comply with the court order. Extension of time is granted as the delay was not inordinate and sufficient cause was shown.
Source excerpt
The applicant demonstrated compliance with all legal requirements for stay of execution, including prompt filing, provision of security, and risk of irreparable loss, justifying the grant of stay pending appeal.
Source excerpt
Interim injunction was refused due to applicant's failure to estimate property value and specify care for assets, making injunction detrimental to respondent; however, security deposit was ordered as closure of respondent's business would likely render any CMA award unenforceable, causing irreparable loss to applicant.
Source excerpt
A one-day delay in depositing security for costs, promptly explained and followed by immediate application for extension, constitutes sufficient cause for enlargement of time, especially where the respondent suffers no prejudice and the applicant demonstrates diligence.
Source excerpt
The applicant demonstrated that the respondents are foreign entities residing outside Tanzania and do not possess sufficient immovable property within Tanzania. The respondents failed to categorically controvert these facts. Therefore, the statutory conditions for ordering security for costs are satisfied.
Source excerpt
The application for security for costs fails because the respondent is a local company residing in Tanzania, and the mandatory condition under Order XXV Rule 1(1) CPC is not met. The court declined to exercise inherent powers under Section 95 CPC as the specific provision is clear and applicable.
Source excerpt
Explore more
