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 refused to extend time to challenge an ex parte order, holding that the applicant failed to account for the delay and lacked diligence.
The High Court dismissed Netis Tanzania Limited’s bid to extend time to challenge an ex parte order, finding the delay unexplained and insufficiently diligent.
The trial Tribunal acted within its discretion and legal mandate in setting aside the ex parte proof order after finding that the respondent demonstrated sufficient cause, including the right to legal representation and language difficulties. There was no illegality or procedural impropriety warranting revision by the High Court.
Source excerpt
Applicants demonstrated good and sufficient cause for delay due to technical reasons; extension of time granted.
Source excerpt
Applicant demonstrated sufficient and justifiable reason for non-appearance due to sickness, and affidavit of names clarified identity; court exercised discretion to set aside previous order and restore pleadings.
Source excerpt
The application is incompetent for containing diverse and contradicting prayers, rendering it omnibus; the remedy is to strike it out.
Source excerpt
The application was struck out for being incompetent due to wrong citation of the enabling provision (Section 95 CPC instead of Order VIII Rule 14 CPC), and the supporting affidavit was found to contain legal arguments contrary to procedural requirements.
Source excerpt
Applicants had not exhausted their statutory period to file written statement of defence at the time of the ex parte order; service to the 1st applicant was not legally compliant; good cause shown for failure to file defence; ex parte order should not have been extended against applicants.
Source excerpt
The High Court at Arusha set aside its earlier ex parte revision ruling after finding the applicant was not properly served and was denied a hearing.
Appellant failed to disclose the source of information in affidavits, rendering averments hearsay and insufficient to establish good cause for setting aside the ex parte order; trial court exercised discretion judiciously in refusing to set aside the order.
Source excerpt
Explore more
