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 partly certified one issue for appeal, finding only the oral-evidence question on a written contract raised a point of law. Other issues were treated as factual or unqualified.
The Court of Appeal held that the Deed of Undertaking did not expire on a fixed date, allowed CRDB Bank’s appeal, and dismissed the cross-appeal.
The respondent was not an employee but a contractor under a management contract; CMA lacked jurisdiction as no employer-employee relationship existed; proceedings and award are quashed and set aside.
Source excerpt
The court held that the applicant fulfilled its obligation by paying the respondent the exact amount agreed in the settlement agreement, regardless of the terminology used in the pay slip. The respondent was not entitled to further payment, and the CMA's order for additional payment was set aside. The respondent was also not entitled to repatriation expenses due to his own delay in clearance.
Source excerpt
Oral evidence cannot override the clear terms of a written contract unless it falls within statutory exceptions; respondent was not privy to the contract and thus lacked locus standi; appellant is the lawful owner as per the written agreement.
Source excerpt
The High Court partially allowed a land appeal over a shop-room agreement, finding the tribunal misdirected itself on possession, rent, and vacating orders.
The High Court set aside an arbitral award after finding it breached public policy through non-compliance with procurement law, while rejecting most other challenge grounds.
There was insufficient evidence to prove an employer-employee relationship; the contract terms and circumstances established the Applicant as an independent contractor, not an employee. Tanzanian law applies, but the Applicant failed to meet the statutory presumption of employment.
Source excerpt
The respondent was contractually entitled to consolidate securities and combine accounts under clause 7(c) of both facilities. The appellant, being both borrower and guarantor, could not claim breach or violation of section 92 of the Law of Contract Act. The respondent's actions were justified both by contract and by the general law of banking practice.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed an appeal, set aside a trial judgment for malicious prosecution, and held the respondent failed to prove lack of reasonable cause or malice.
Explore more
