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 failed because the applicant did not establish an arguable case or sufficient interest, as the issue of ownership of the disputed plot was unresolved and not within the jurisdiction of the current proceedings. Only the timeliness condition was met, which is insufficient as all three conditions must be satisfied cumulatively.
Source excerpt
The applicant has demonstrated sufficient interest, an arguable case, and the absence of an operational alternative remedy; leave to apply for judicial review is granted.
Source excerpt
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case, did not demonstrate sufficient personal interest, and had alternative remedies available. The allegations were unproven, and the applicant was not directly affected by the appointment. The court found no basis to grant leave for judicial review.
Source excerpt
The High Court granted leave for judicial review over a levy on electronic money transactions, finding an arguable case, sufficient interest, and prompt filing.
The High Court struck out a judicial review leave application after finding the supporting affidavit defective because key paragraphs contained hearsay, opinions, and conclusions.
The application for leave to intervene is properly before the Court as the grounds of the application sufficiently contain the Applicant's statement of interest, satisfying Rule 36(2)(e). The Applicant, as a Member of EALA who participated in the impugned election, has a direct and immediate interest in the Reference. The procedural objections raised by the First Respondent do not warrant denial of leave to intervene. The Applicant may be represented in his personal capacity by private counsel. The defective affidavit of the First Respondent is expunged from the record, but this does not affe…
Source excerpt
The African Court held it lacked jurisdiction over Femi Falana’s application against the African Union because the AU is not a State Party to the Protocol.
The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the application because the Protocol only allows applications by individuals against State Parties that have ratified the Protocol and made the required declaration under Article 34(6). The African Union is not a State Party and cannot be subject to obligations under the Protocol. Therefore, the application falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction ratione personae.
Source excerpt
The District Land and Housing Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant the execution order in Application No. 133 of 2020 because the underlying proceedings in Application No. 112 of 2020 had been quashed and ownership of the disputed land remained undetermined. The applicant, though not a party to the original proceedings, had a vested interest and was entitled to seek revision. The execution order was unlawful and must be set aside.
Source excerpt
Explore more
