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
High Court granted a stay of execution pending appeal, finding the application timely, risk of substantial loss, and adequate security by commitment bond.
The appellate tribunal's omission to properly involve assessors in hearing and determination of the appeal, including failure to record or read their written opinions, constitutes a fatal procedural error that vitiates the proceedings and judgment, necessitating nullification and retrial.
Source excerpt
The first appellate court's failure to address and determine the grounds of appeal, particularly those concerning the right to be heard and the legality of the trial court’s decision, is a fatal irregularity rendering its judgment a nullity.
Source excerpt
The application for stay of execution was filed within the prescribed time after service of notice of execution regarding the Kijitonyama property. The lack of Registrar's endorsement on the affidavit is a procedural omission not fatal to the application. The applicant demonstrated risk of substantial loss if evicted, as the alternative property is unfinished. A general undertaking to furnish security is sufficient in the context of a non-monetary decree. The requirements for stay of execution under rule 11(4)-(7) were met.
Source excerpt
The first appellate court's judgment was defective for failing to address the grounds of appeal, lacking analysis of submissions, and improperly handling electronic evidence; the judgment must be set aside and the case remitted for a fresh judgment.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an application to extend time for filing a notice of appeal, finding the applicants failed to account for a 25-day delay or show sufficient cause.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding there was no bias in the tribunal chairperson hearing the matter and that the appellant failed to prove ownership.
The High Court held that a bill of costs should be taxed by the highest court that finally determined the matter, and quashed the lower courts’ orders for want of jurisdiction.
The High Court refused to extend time to lodge a notice of appeal, holding that the applicant did not account for the full delay after withdrawing a revision application.
The appeal lacks merit as there were no contradictions in the parties' testimonies to warrant a visit to the locus in quo, the respondent proved ownership of the disputed land on the balance of probabilities, and the issue of land sold to third parties was not raised at trial and cannot be considered on appeal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
