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 appeal is incompetent because the appellant failed to attach the drawn order/decree sought to be appealed against, depriving the court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Source excerpt
The appeal is incompetent because it was filed while a prior dismissal order by the High Court on the same matter exists; the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain another appeal of similar nature after dismissal.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land appeal after finding the decree inconsistent with the judgment, making the appeal incompetent and impossible to execute.
The appeal was filed by the appellant in her personal capacity rather than as administratrix of the estate, which is a substantive defect that renders the appeal incompetent and invalid; such a defect is not curable by amendment after hearing on merits, as only the grantee of letters of administration can represent the estate.
Source excerpt
Omission of a necessary party from the appeal renders it incompetent as any decision may affect interests without giving all parties a right to be heard.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal as incompetent for failure to serve the notice of appeal on the respondents under rule 84(1).
The appeal is incompetent because the parties cited in the appeal differ from those in the original tribunal proceedings, violating established legal principles regarding party identification.
Source excerpt
The appeal is incompetent due to uncertainty and lack of proof regarding the identity of appellants as parties to the original proceedings and Reference No. 60A of 2008. The proceedings of the consolidated trade inquiries and Reference No. 60A of 2008 are nullified for violation of statutory requirements, and no appeal can stem from a nullity.
Source excerpt
The appeal is incompetent due to uncertainty and lack of proof regarding the identity and party status of the appellants in the original proceedings and Reference No. 60A of 2008. The underlying proceedings were a nullity for failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding proper institution and party identification. No appeal can arise from such null proceedings.
Source excerpt
The appeal was struck out as incompetent due to a procedural defect in the first appellate court's proceedings, specifically the misnaming of the case type, which fundamentally undermined the competence of the appeal and could not be rectified by amendment.
Source excerpt
Explore more
