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 High Court of Tanzania partly rectified a withdrawal order, correcting the case title error but refusing to insert leave to refile under section 96.
The applicant, though withdrew the appeal without leave, was unrepresented and acted under presumption of right to refile; the delay periods are not inordinate and are reasonable for preparation; sufficient reasons exist for extension of time.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the land suit was barred because the plaintiff had earlier withdrawn a related tribunal application without leave to refile.
The applicant withdrew a prior application without leave to refile, thus is barred by Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC from instituting a fresh application on the same subject matter.
Source excerpt
The petition is barred because the petitioner withdrew the previous suit (Commercial Cause No.53 of 2021) without leave to refile, thus precluding him from instituting a fresh suit on the same subject matter under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The present petition is a replica of the previous case and is therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that a land suit was incompetent because an earlier suit over the same subject matter had been withdrawn without leave to refile.
The High Court’s Land Division struck out a land suit as res judicata, holding that a prior consent judgment over the same property bound the parties and barred relitigation.
The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of an employment suit as time-barred, finding section 21 of the Limitation Act inapplicable after voluntary withdrawal of the earlier suit.
The appellant did not prosecute the previous suit with due diligence, as Government Notice No. 543 of 1997 was in force before the suit was filed, and the withdrawal was voluntary. Therefore, section 21(1) and (3)(c) of the Law of Limitation Act did not apply, and the suit was time-barred.
Source excerpt
High Court ruled that a repeated land claim was barred by withdrawal without leave and limitation, striking out and dismissing the suit with costs.
Explore more
