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 Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to consider the application because the African Union and the African Union Commission are not State Parties to the Protocol, and only State Parties can be respondents before the Court.
Source excerpt
The applicants failed to meet the cumulative conditions for grant of interim relief as set out in Atilio vs Mbowe. They did not establish locus standi, as they sued in their personal capacity despite claiming to act for a larger group, and granting the orders to only 65 out of over 4,300 traders would be detrimental to public interest.
Source excerpt
The application for review did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record; the grounds raised were more suited for appeal than review, and thus the application lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out an application for leave to appeal because it was filed 45 days after the High Court refused leave, beyond the 14-day limit.
The application was filed forty-five days after the High Court's refusal, exceeding the fourteen-day limitation period prescribed by Rule 45(b), rendering the application incompetent.
Source excerpt
Applicant demonstrated sufficient interest in the subject matter and the challenged decision was final, thus leave to apply for certiorari is granted. Stay of proceedings denied as it was not part of original application and respondents were not heard on it.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of a notice or order of intention to sell the property, and thus did not establish sufficient justification for a temporary injunction. There was no compelling need to protect the property as no imminent sale was demonstrated.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld an execution order against Vitus Kasike and dismissed his land appeal, finding no merit in objections about representation, standing, or timing.
The suit was not properly constituted as a representative action since leave of the court was not obtained under Order 1 Rule 8; only those respondents who testified could claim, and the respondents failed to prove the illegitimacy of the trustees' decision to demolish the building; the appeal is allowed.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a house sale, holding the appellant had no legal or equitable interest and no standing to sue.
Explore more
