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 respondent was impleaded as an office rather than a natural or legal person, contrary to established legal principles.
Source excerpt
The High Court Labour Division struck out Exim Bank’s revision application as incompetent because the notice was defective and no notice to seek revision had been filed at CMA.
The High Court dismissed a temporary injunction application after the related main application had already been dismissed, making the injunction incompetent.
The High Court struck out a civil revision application because the applicant failed to attach the impugned order sought to be revised.
The application was incompetent due to mismatched pleadings and supporting affidavit, failing to properly reference the impugned CMA award as required by procedural rules.
Source excerpt
The application before the District Land and Housing Tribunal was incompetent due to failure to properly describe the suit property as required by mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and Land Disputes Courts Regulations; all proceedings were a nullity and must be quashed.
Source excerpt
The application is a civil proceeding and thus a suit within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act; failure to issue statutory notice and join the Attorney General renders the application incompetent.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division struck out a land application after finding the supporting affidavit was defective for lacking the deponent’s signature and date before verification.
The application was brought under a wrong provision of law; the proper remedy is to strike it out, not to allow amendment.
Source excerpt
All grounds of appeal are rejected; respondent's evidence of land acquisition is heavier; Elizabeth Ateia Zangila Mboto's testimony suffices; fraud not proved; application was competent; judgment contained reasons; trial tribunal's decision upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
