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 application is incompetent because the applicant failed to attach the judgment and decree/order sought to be appealed against, making it impossible for the court to ascertain the decision, parties, and validity of the decree/order.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land application after holding that the supporting affidavit was defective because it was sworn by a non-applicant and verified by the applicants.
The application was incompetent as it was filed by memorandum of revision instead of chamber summons supported by affidavit, contravening Order XLIII rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
The application is incompetent because the notice of intended execution attached was not issued by the court and the Primary Court's order did not grant any right to the respondent that could be executed or stayed. Therefore, the requirements under rule 11 (7) (d) of the Rules were not met.
Source excerpt
The application is incompetent because the notice of application was signed by the advocate and not by the party bringing the application, in violation of Rule 24(2) of the Labour Court Rules, GN. No. 106 of 2007.
Source excerpt
Rule 4(2) cannot be invoked where rule 11 specifically provides for stay of execution pending appeal; since the applicants failed to comply with rule 11, the application is incompetent and must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
The application is incompetent due to fatal defects in the supporting affidavit, including unsigned jurat clauses by several applicants and a contradiction in the number and identity of applicants, making it impossible to ascertain who the real applicants are. Such defects are not mere technicalities but go to the root of the application, warranting its striking out.
Source excerpt
The application was filed out of time as the applicant was aware of the execution proceedings before the alleged date and failed to disclose this material fact, rendering the application incompetent under rule 11(4) of the Rules.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division struck out an application for leave to appeal, holding that leave was unnecessary because the earlier decision was made in the court’s original jurisdiction.
The High Court struck out a land application as incompetent because it combined unrelated prayers in one omnibus motion, awarding costs to the respondents.
Explore more
