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 held the eviction was lawful but ordered return of certain retained office items, finding no proof of general, punitive, or special damages.
Defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care to safeguard the pledged certificate of title and breached that duty by negligently misplacing the document, causing material and mental loss to the plaintiff. Specific damages were not proved to the required standard, but general damages are warranted for detinue and negligence.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that Multsol Mauritius proved ownership of detained goods and ordered their release or value, plus general damages for loss of business.
The High Court held CRDB unlawfully withheld securities after the plaintiffs repaid their loans, awarding damages for lost business opportunity and related losses.
The High Court dismissed a trespass and detinue claim over road-construction equipment, holding the claim depended on invalid DRE recommendations made after a void contract finding.
The court held that the preliminary objection was not a pure point of law as it was based on a contractual clause and annextures, not on the pleadings alone. Even if it were a legal preliminary objection, parties cannot oust the court's jurisdiction by agreement, and the High Court retains unlimited original jurisdiction under the Constitution and relevant statutes. The Commercial Division's jurisdiction is not exclusive, and the case involves both commercial and tort claims that cannot be easily separated.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in striking out the entire suit as time barred without considering that the claim for detinue was a continuous tort and thus not time barred under section 7 of the Law of Limitation Act. The trial court also failed to consider entering judgment on admission for the sum admitted by the respondent. Only the claims for malicious prosecution and wrongful imprisonment were time barred; the claim for detinue was not.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in striking out the entire suit as time barred because the claim for detinue is a continuing wrong under section 7 of the Law of Limitation Act and was not time barred; judgment on admission should have been considered for the admitted sum.
Source excerpt
The High Court held it lacked jurisdiction over a customs-related damages claim, because disputes arising from revenue laws had to go to the Tax Revenue Appeals Board.
The suit is not time-barred as the cause of action in detinue arose on the date of demand for restoration, the plaint discloses all essential facts required for detinue, non-joinder is irrelevant as the defendant is alleged to be detaining the vehicles, and there is no abuse of process as the defendant was not a party to previous suits.
Source excerpt
Explore more
