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 appellants demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance due to a settlement agreement with the respondent, which was not controverted by affidavit. The existence of the agreement and the confusion it caused justified setting aside the ex parte judgment under Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land appeal as premature, holding that the challenged ruling was interlocutory and therefore not appealable under the applicable regulations.
The appellants were denied the right to be heard as the trial tribunal proceeded ex parte despite sufficient notice of their absence due to bereavement, violating the constitutional right to a fair hearing. The ex parte proceedings and resulting judgment are null and void.
Source excerpt
Applicants failed to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance as reasons advanced were either unproven, unsupported by evidence, or amounted to negligence. The court found that summons had been duly served and that the applicants had ample opportunity to act but failed to do so. Thus, the application to set aside the ex parte judgment was dismissed for want of merit.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to justify his absence or to show that the summons did not reach him. The tribunal was entitled to rely on the presumption of regular service through newspaper publication, and there was no misuse of discretion. The respondent's reference to past litigation was irrelevant, but did not affect the outcome, which was based on lack of evidence.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division set aside an ex parte judgment after finding the applicants had shown good cause and the respondent conceded the application.
The applicant is entitled to be accommodated under technical delay as he has been diligent and keen in pursuing his rights step by step after each setback. There is no element of laxity or lack of diligence, and it would be unwise to close the doors for him under these circumstances.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed an appeal after holding that the trial court raised issues suo motu and decided them without hearing the parties, violating the right to be heard.
The application to set aside the ex parte judgment was filed within the prescribed thirty-day limitation period under the Law of Limitation Act, as the ex parte decree was issued before the application. The trial court erred in applying a twenty-one day period and in its computation of time.
Source excerpt
The appellant was duly served with summons to appear for the ex parte judgment and failed to attend by his own design. The issue of double allocation was not pleaded or raised before the trial tribunal and cannot be considered on appeal. The grounds for extension of time and setting aside the ex parte judgment were not established.
Source excerpt
Explore more
