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 that an electronic appeal was filed in time where it was submitted through the system before the deadline and payment followed promptly after control number generation.
The proceedings of the District Land and Housing Tribunal were vitiated by serious irregularity due to failure to ensure both assessors' written opinions were read to the parties and made part of the record, rendering the judgment and decree a nullity.
Source excerpt
The presence of two conflicting certificates of delay, neither of which validly complies with Rule 90(1)(c) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, renders the appeal incompetent and invalid in law.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal as time-barred, holding that the appellant could not rely on a certificate of delay because the request letter for proceedings was not served on the respondent.
The High Court allowed a land appeal, finding the tribunal failed to follow locus in quo procedure and denied a proper right of cross-examination, so the case was sent for retrial.
The Court of Appeal struck out a notice of appeal after the respondent failed to take essential steps to institute the appeal within the prescribed time.
The Court of Appeal struck out the respondent’s notice of appeal for failure to take essential steps within time and deemed the later appeal struck out.
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania struck out a notice of appeal after finding the respondents had not taken the required steps to pursue their intended appeal in time.
The Court of Appeal struck out a land appeal after finding the appellant failed to serve the respondents with the letter requesting proceedings, making the certificate of delay invalid.
The Court of Appeal held that a prisoner’s appeal was not time barred and that the High Court should not have dismissed it for incompetence.
Explore more
