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 dismissed a civil appeal over a fuel debt, holding that an oral credit contract was proved, the debt was supported by evidence, and the costs award stood.
The sale contract was illegal and void ab initio as the respondent, a non-citizen, could not lawfully acquire land under section 20 of the Land Act; thus, ownership did not pass and the appellant remains the rightful owner, subject to refunding the purchase price.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a civil appeal after finding a money-lending loan agreement unenforceable because the respondent lacked a valid business licence.
The contracts between the parties were void and illegal as their consideration and object were forbidden by law, specifically constituting a pyramid scheme and accepting deposits without a license. As such, the contracts are unenforceable and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any money or damages.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the investment agreements were illegal and unenforceable because they amounted to a pyramid scheme and unlicensed deposit-taking.
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding the loan agreement void for illegality and setting aside the district court’s judgment and orders with costs.
The High Court struck out an application in which the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal after leave had already been granted earlier.
The High Court granted leave to defend a summary suit, finding triable issues over the amount claimed and an alleged illegality in the underlying MoU.
The High Court held that an unlicensed money-lending arrangement was illegal and unenforceable, allowing recovery only of the principal and awarding damages for delay.
The High Court allowed a second appeal over a loan-and-collateral dispute, holding the arrangement illegal and the respondent unjustified in disposing of the car.
Explore more
