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
An affidavit attested by a foreign advocate not authorized to practice in Tanzania is defective and cannot be used in Tanzanian courts unless properly authenticated by the relevant Tanzanian authority.
Source excerpt
The affidavit supporting the application was attested by a person not qualified under Tanzanian law, rendering the affidavit defective and the application incompetent. The preliminary objection is upheld and the application is struck out with costs.
Source excerpt
The affidavit is defective for lack of proper attestation as required by section 8 of Cap 12, and thus the application is struck out.
Source excerpt
Affidavits lacking the written name of the attesting officer in the jurat are fatally defective and render the application incompetent.
Source excerpt
The High Court at Arusha upheld a preliminary objection, finding the supporting affidavit defective because it was attested by a foreign notary not entitled to practise in Tanzania.
The jurat of attestation in the affidavit complied with Section 8 of the Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act Cap 12 by stating the place and date of attestation. The omission of the word 'Truly' does not render the affidavit incurably defective. The preliminary objection does not raise a pure point of law and is dismissed for lack of merit.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out Millicom’s application for extension of time because the supporting affidavit was improperly attested by a notary not recognized in Tanzania.
The High Court Labour Division struck out an application for extension of time because the supporting affidavit was attested by an interested advocate.
The High Court refused leave to appeal against a revision order, holding the order was interlocutory, the application lacked merit, and the matter should continue before the tribunal.
The application for extension of time was properly before the court under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, and the affidavit was properly attested in compliance with the law.
Source excerpt
Explore more
