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 allowed a revision, nullified CMA proceedings, and set aside an ex parte award for lack of jurisdiction, no oath, no proper service, and breach of hearing rights.
The High Court revised a CMA ruling and extended time to seek setting aside of an ex parte award, holding the immunity issue deserved consideration.
The High Court granted time extension for a revision application, finding arguable jurisdictional issues over CMA proceedings based on public service and diplomatic immunity.
The High Court granted an extension of time to seek revision of a CMA ruling, accepting alleged illegality based on diplomatic immunity as enough to justify the delay.
The Court of Appeal quashed High Court proceedings in Civil Case No. 124 of 2010, set aside an ex parte judgment and decree, and ordered the case reheard de novo.
The Court of Appeal quashed High Court proceedings for lack of proof of service before ex parte orders, set aside the judgment and decree, and ordered a fresh hearing.
The High Court struck out a revision application as incompetent because the challenged rulings were interlocutory and did not finally determine the charges.
PAPU, as an international organization under Tanzanian law, enjoys immunity from suit and legal process, including attachment and execution of its property, unless there is an express waiver, which did not occur in this case. The High Court's orders for attachment and execution were therefore illegal and must be set aside.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the UN World Food Programme enjoyed immunity from suit, so the commercial claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction.
The court held that the impugned provisions do not violate the Constitution as they do not absolutely bar access to court but require compliance with procedural requirements for waiver of immunity. The limitations are reasonable, justified by international obligations, and consistent with the Constitution. The petition lacks merit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
