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 held there was no conflict of interest disqualifying Abrasen & Co. Advocates, because the partner involved had not acted for the respondent and disciplinary proceedings were administrative.
Mr. Mahuna is disqualified from representing the 1st and 3rd respondents due to conflict of interest, as he attested the sale agreement central to the dispute and is a potential witness. Allowing him to continue would violate professional conduct rules and endanger the integrity of the proceedings.
Source excerpt
Advocate Abdallah Kilobwa was disqualified from representing the respondent before the Tribunal due to his prior role as commissioner for oaths in attesting the disputed sale agreement, constituting a potential conflict of interest under section 7 of the Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act. The proceedings and judgment of the Tribunal were therefore quashed and a retrial ordered.
Source excerpt
An advocate who attests a document that is central to the pleadings and may be called as a witness is conflicted and must be disqualified from acting as advocate in the same matter to avoid embarrassment and preserve the integrity of proceedings, as per Section 7 of Cap 12 R.E. 2019 and Regulation 45 of G.N. 118 of 2018.
Source excerpt
Plaintiff's advocate Daniel Weiwei is disqualified due to conflict of interest arising from attesting a document central to the suit, as there is a real possibility he may be called as a witness, and the law prohibits an advocate from acting in such circumstances to avoid embarrassment and protect the integrity of proceedings.
Source excerpt
The plaint was struck out because it was drawn, endorsed, and filed by advocates (Orbit Attorneys) who had a conflict of interest, having previously represented the 1st defendant in a substantially related matter involving the same property and mortgage. The court found that the matters were connected and that the advocates had confidential information relevant to both cases, thus disqualifying them from acting against their former client.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that plaintiffs’ counsel must withdraw because he may testify, but the pleadings he filed remain on record. Costs were left in the cause.
The advocate for the plaintiffs must withdraw from the conduct of the case due to potential conflict of interest, but pleadings drawn and filed by him remain valid and on record.
Source excerpt
Both Lawgical Attorneys and Ngalo & Co. Advocates developed conflicts of interest due to prior representation of the Ladwa family; pleadings drawn and filed by these firms are improperly before the court and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
Time spent by the plaintiff in bona fide prosecution of previous proceedings must be excluded in computing the limitation period; as such, the suit is not time barred. No legal basis or evidence was provided to support the objections of abuse of process or advocate disqualification. All preliminary objections fail.
Source excerpt
Explore more
