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
Striking out a suit due to expiry of a speed track is not authorized by the Civil Procedure Code; the trial court should instead impose costs on the party responsible for delay and proceed to hear the suit on its merits.
Source excerpt
Expiry of a speed track under Order VIIIA rule 3(3) of the Civil Procedure Code does not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction or require dismissal of the suit. The court retains discretion to extend the speed track, either on application or suo motu, unless injustice would result. Procedural rules must not override substantive justice, especially where delay is not solely attributable to one party.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a commercial suit after holding that its speed track had expired and no application for extension or amendment had been made.
It was neither legal, proper nor justified for the trial court to dismiss the suit on the ground of speed track expiry when an extension had been granted, nor to decide on a matter raised suo motu without hearing the parties.
Source excerpt
The High Court held the suit was out of time under the assigned speed track, but allowed the plaintiffs seven days to file an application to regularize the case.
The High Court held the suit was not properly before it after expiry of the assigned speed track, but allowed the plaintiffs seven days to seek rectification.
The suit is struck out because the speed track expired long ago, no application for extension or amendment was made within the prescribed time, and the court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Source excerpt
The court held that expiry of the speed track period does not automatically nullify the suit. The proper course is to depart from or amend the scheduling order and extend the life span of the suit if it is in the interests of justice. Striking out the suit is not mandatory and would be unjust where the delay is not solely attributable to the plaintiff.
Source excerpt
The court retains jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit despite expiry of the scheduling order, as the delay was not attributable to the parties and justice should not be denied for procedural lapses caused by the court.
Source excerpt
The court retains jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit despite expiry of the speed track period, as the delay was not attributable to the plaintiffs but to the court's failure to provide assessors; striking out the suit would be unjust.
Source excerpt
Explore more
