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 applicants failed to substantiate their reasons for delay with evidence and did not account for each day of delay; however, the alleged illegality in sentencing—failure to consider the alternative of a fine for first offenders—raises a serious legal issue apparent on the face of the record, justifying extension of time in the interests of justice.
Source excerpt
The Court found that there exist conflicting High Court decisions regarding whether a CMA condonation decision is interlocutory or final and whether such a decision is subject to revision under section 91 of ELRA. The Court certified that these are points of law warranting determination by the Court of Appeal and ordered referral accordingly.
Source excerpt
The Court found the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies in all claims except those against his lawyers. Regarding the lawyers, the Court found the applicant had access to the Constitutional Court, which ruled on the matter, and that the right to a fair trial was not violated. The application was filed within a reasonable time for this claim. No violation of the right to a fair trial was established.
Source excerpt
It is in the interest of justice to grant the respondent State a 45-day extension to file its response, reopen the written procedure, and postpone the public hearing, with strict adherence to the new deadline; the request for costs will be considered with the merits.
Source excerpt
In the interests of justice, and given the absence of any pleadings from the Respondent State and the complexity of the legal issues concerning the rights of persons with albinism, the Court grants the Respondent State forty-five days to file its response and reopens the pleadings, postponing the public hearing accordingly.
Source excerpt
The petitioners failed to exhaust available statutory remedies, specifically judicial review, before filing the constitutional petition, rendering the petition incompetent under sections 4(5) and 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. The requirement to exhaust remedies is mandatory and not discretionary in this context.
Source excerpt
Section 3(1) of the Law of Limitation Act is constitutional and not arbitrary; a dismissal for time bar is final and precludes further applications for extension of time. The only remedy is appeal. The High Court correctly followed binding precedent, and there is no conflict requiring a full bench. The provision does not violate the right to a fair hearing or access to justice as long as proceedings are instituted within the prescribed time.
Source excerpt
The application was declared inadmissible because the applicant had not exhausted available and effective domestic remedies, specifically the pending cassation appeal, as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules.
Source excerpt
The applicants had access to all levels of national courts, including the Supreme Court, and received decisions at each stage. There was no evidence of denial of access, unreasonable delay, or lack of judicial independence. The applicants failed to substantiate their claims of rights violations. Therefore, the State did not violate the applicants' rights under the Charter or the ICCPR.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the applicant's right to a fair hearing under Article 7(1) of the Charter was not violated regarding the examination of his grounds of appeal, as the national courts considered the relevant issues. However, the Court held that the respondent violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, read with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, by failing to provide the applicant with free legal assistance in a serious criminal case carrying a severe penalty.
Source excerpt
Explore more
