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 has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for defamation where only general damages are claimed, due to the proviso introduced in section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code by the 2016 amendment, rendering objections based on lack of specific damages redundant.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a civil appeal in a defamation matter, holding that the respondent had not pleaded the specific defamatory words or proved publication to a third party.
The High Court allowed an appeal in a defamation suit, finding the pleaded words and trial evidence materially differed and the respondent failed to prove defamatory publication.
The High Court at Shinyanga recorded a consent judgment settling a defamation suit and adopted the parties’ deed of settlement as the decree.
The High Court allowed a defamation appeal, finding the respondent’s words about the appellant were published publicly and harmed his reputation.
The appellant's statements regarding the paternity of the respondent's child were defamatory, were published to third parties, and caused injury to the respondent's reputation. The trial court correctly found for the respondent on liability, but the general damages awarded were excessive given the narrow extent of publication and lack of demonstrated wider reputational harm. General damages were reduced accordingly.
Source excerpt
The petition was served outside the prescribed seven-day period after issuance of summons, and the petitioner failed to file an affidavit explaining the delay as required by Rule 5(3) of the Media Services (Defamation Proceedings) Rules, 2019. The petition is incompetent and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
Second appeal in a family defamation dispute dismissed for lack of proof of defamatory injury and actual damages arising from the alleged word 'tapeli'.
The High Court found only the fourth defendant liable for defamation after a public statement about the plaintiff's alleged paternity and child abandonment.
The trial court's omission to record assessors' qualifications was not fatal; the court had pecuniary jurisdiction based on the pleaded claim; the publication was defamatory in its plain and ordinary meaning; the respondent suffered damages; the trial judge obtained and considered assessors' opinions; however, the trial judge erred by considering inflation, which was not pleaded or evidenced, in assessing damages. The award was reduced to the amount pleaded and proved.
Source excerpt
Explore more
