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 quashed a CMA award, finding the employee’s termination unfair for lack of a valid reason and flawed disciplinary procedure.
The appeal lacked merit as the lower courts had jurisdiction, the offence was proved beyond reasonable doubt, and there was no miscarriage of justice or misapprehension of evidence warranting interference by the second appellate court.
Source excerpt
The High Court in Mwanza set aside a CMA award, holding that the employee’s termination was unfair substantively and procedurally and awarded compensation.
The respondent proved constructive termination as the applicant's actions made employment intolerable, and the respondent utilized available grievance mechanisms. However, the CMA erred by awarding compensation above the statutory minimum without providing reasons or criteria, warranting reduction to twelve months remuneration.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that Engusero Sidani’s village land use plan existed but was made without required village council involvement, so it was not enforceable.
The High Court at Musoma recorded a consent judgment settling a land dispute over alleged road reserve plots, with compensation to be paid before demolition.
The High Court held that the counter claim was res judicata because it sought to relitigate ownership and occupation of land already decided in Civil Case No. 72 of 1994.
The High Court held that the plaintiffs proved historical ownership of 18 acres at Somanda, and declared the purported occupancy grant to the police unlawful.
The High Court held the plaintiffs failed to prove lawful ownership of the disputed land, and dismissed the suit despite finding malicious burning of property.
The High Court at Mbeya found most plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the disputed land, but awarded general damages to three plaintiffs for part of the health centre site.
Explore more
