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 applicant established a prima facie case due to the disputed payments and ongoing use of the machines, demonstrated likelihood of irreparable loss as the machines are depreciating assets, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicant since continued use by the respondent could cause greater loss to the applicant if the main suit is decided in their favour.
Source excerpt
The High Court refused to vary its earlier order requiring the applicants to keep paying monthly instalments under a hire purchase agreement pending the main land suit.
The Court of Appeal held that unfair rejection of documentary evidence at trial rendered the proceedings a nullity and ordered a retrial.
The trial court's proceedings and judgment were a nullity as the suit did not fall within the ambit of summary proceedings under Order XXXV and judgment was delivered without notice to the parties, violating mandatory procedural requirements.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that two tractor trucks were supplied under a hire purchase agreement and that the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay as agreed.
The plaintiff proved service, filed the required application and affidavit, and established breach of contract by the defendant for failure to pay for delivered machines. The court found all requirements for default judgment satisfied and granted the reliefs sought.
Source excerpt
The plaintiff proved service of summons, filed the required application and affidavit in proof of claim, and established breach of contract by the defendant for failure to pay the agreed sum for machines supplied. The court found all requirements for default judgment satisfied and granted the reliefs sought.
Source excerpt
The plaintiff failed to prove breach of contract by the 1st defendant as the plaintiff was in breach for non-payment of agreed installments; oral variation was inadmissible under the Evidence Act; the 1st defendant was justified in repossessing the equipment.
Source excerpt
Explore more
