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 suit land was not properly described in the application before the trial tribunal, rendering the proceedings incompetent and the resulting orders inoperative.
Source excerpt
Land appeal allowed in part after the High Court found procedural irregularity in execution proceedings before the Shinyanga DLHT and ordered a retrial.
The failure of the trial tribunal to properly describe the suit property in its decision constitutes an apparent illegality on the face of the record, which is a sufficient ground to grant extension of time to file a revision application.
Source excerpt
The application before the Tribunal failed to properly describe the boundaries and size of the disputed land as required by law, rendering the proceedings, decision, and orders incompetent and invalid.
Source excerpt
The application before the trial tribunal was incompetent due to failure to properly describe the subject matter, rendering the proceedings, decision, and orders null and void.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that lack of clear property description warranted striking out, not dismissal, but upheld refusal to permit amendment after evidence had begun.
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 suit before the trial tribunal was incompetent for failure to provide a description of the suit property sufficient to identify it, as required by Order VII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. This defect rendered the proceedings, judgment, and decree a nullity.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal granted extension of time to file a notice of appeal and seek leave, holding that omission to describe the suit property raised arguable illegality on the face of the record.
The suit property was insufficiently described in the plaint, failing to meet the mandatory requirements of Order VII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, rendering the suit incompetent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
