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 defendant was grossly negligent and failed to file the Written Statement of Defence within the statutory and extended periods. The court's discretion to extend time is limited by the Civil Procedure Code, and the defendant's delay of approximately 110 days is inordinate. Therefore, the defendant forfeited the right to file the defence, and the matter must proceed ex-parte.
Source excerpt
The High Court granted extension of time to file a written statement of defence, finding the delay was only eight days and that a pleaded illegality was apparent.
The High Court’s Land Division granted KCB Bank Tanzania Limited extension of time and set aside an order striking out its defence, restoring the written statement of defence.
The amendment of the Written Statement of Defence to add a counterclaim is granted because it serves the interests of justice by enabling the court to determine all matters in controversy in a single suit, avoids multiplicity of proceedings, and does not cause injustice to the plaintiffs.
Source excerpt
The application to amend the Written Statement of Defence is allowed because the amendment is necessary to determine the real questions in controversy and does not occasion injustice to the respondents. Order VI rule 17 CPC and overriding objectives support allowing amendments for just resolution of disputes.
Source excerpt
The trial Tribunal acted within its discretion and legal mandate in setting aside the ex parte proof order after finding that the respondent demonstrated sufficient cause, including the right to legal representation and language difficulties. There was no illegality or procedural impropriety warranting revision by the High Court.
Source excerpt
Amended application was filed out of time and without leave, thus invalid; amendment was only to language, not substance, so prior WSD remained valid; no error material to merits or injustice shown; revision not merited.
Source excerpt
The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant extension of time to file Written Statement of Defence if the application is made beyond 7 days after expiry of the initial 21 days from service of summons, i.e., after 28 days. The Defendant's application was made after this period, thus the Court cannot entertain it regardless of the reasons advanced.
Source excerpt
The applicant accounted for each day of the six-day delay through affidavits and documentary evidence, and demonstrated diligence and absence of negligence. The principles requiring accounting for each day of delay apply, and the applicant satisfied this requirement. The application for extension of time is therefore granted.
Source excerpt
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant extension of time to file Written Statement of Defence after the lapse of the statutorily fixed 28-day period from service, and that the defendant's reasons for delay did not constitute good cause. The plaintiff was allowed to apply for default judgment.
Source excerpt
Explore more
