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 suit is incompetent for non-joinder of necessary government parties (Commissioner for Lands and Registrar of Titles), and the court lacks jurisdiction to make further orders. The proper recourse is to strike out the suit, not to adjourn or amend, due to the mandatory notice requirement under the Government Proceedings Act.
Source excerpt
The suit was incompetent due to failure to indicate the names of all defendants; the proper remedy is to strike out the suit, not allow withdrawal or dismissal.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s striking out of a land suit and remitted the case, holding that the plaint should have been allowed to be amended.
The court struck out a land suit after finding the plaint failed to describe the disputed property as required by Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC.
The omission to join the Registrar of Titles and the Attorney General is a fundamental defect rendering the suit incompetent and liable to be struck out; costs are awarded to the defendants due to plaintiff's repeated procedural failures and lack of diligence.
Source excerpt
Failure to serve the mandatory 90 days' notice on both the Attorney General and Solicitor General, as required by section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, renders the suit incompetent. The statutory requirement is mandatory and noncompliance cannot be cured by arguments of misjoinder or overriding objective. The appropriate remedy is to strike out the suit with liberty to refile upon compliance.
Source excerpt
The plaint failed to sufficiently describe the suit property as required by Order VII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, rendering the suit incompetent and subject to being struck out.
Source excerpt
The suit was instituted against a non-existing entity, Dar es Salaam Water & Sewerage Authority, which was disestablished by law in 2019; therefore, the suit is incompetent and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The plaintiffs amended the plaint by removing and adding parties without seeking leave of the court, contrary to the specific court order which only allowed addition of the Commissioner for Land as a defendant. This non-compliance with the court's order warranted striking out the suit.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land suit for wrong and non-existent defendants and for failure to serve mandatory notice on the proper authority.
Explore more
