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 is fatally defective for being omnibus, combining unrelated prayers governed by different laws, and for failure to serve the requisite statutory notice to the government; it is accordingly struck out.
Source excerpt
Failure to issue a 90-days statutory notice to the government and to join the Attorney General as a necessary party, where relief is sought against a government institution, is a fatal defect under Section 6(2), 6(3), and 6(4) of the Government Proceedings Act. The petition is incompetent and must be struck out. Exceeding the page limit is an irregularity but not fatal; however, the statutory notice defect vitiates the proceedings.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land suit because the plaintiff failed to prove service of the mandatory 90-day statutory notice on government defendants.
Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. The valuation exercise is lawful, accepted by the majority, and the applicants are a minority. GPS evidence and government documents show the hamlets are within the National Park. The application is not supported by the village council, which has the mandate on boundary and valuation issues. Granting an injunction would unjustifiably frustrate lawful government activities.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division upheld a preliminary objection for failure to serve the mandatory 90-day statutory notice on the government, striking out the suit as premature.
The High Court Land Division struck out an application for maintenance of status quo, finding it incompetent because the relief sought was unclear.
The court held that it has inherent jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions pending institution of a suit under section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that the order sought was only against the 1st respondent (a private party), not government entities. The court found no prejudice to government respondents due to service of statutory notice only on the Attorney General, and determined it was just to maintain the status quo pending expiry of the ninety day notice.
Source excerpt
The suit is incompetent due to failure to serve the mandatory 90-day statutory notice to the Solicitor General, inclusion of a non-existent legal entity as a defendant, and failure to join the Registrar of Titles as a necessary party.
Source excerpt
The suit is incompetent for want of jurisdiction, insufficient description of the disputed land, failure to disclose a cause of action against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, and failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement to government entities. The objections raised are meritorious and the suit is struck out with costs.
Source excerpt
Explore more
