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 appeal was incompetent as it challenged an interlocutory ruling; the Attorney General was a necessary party, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction once this was apparent. The High Court exercised revisionary powers to quash the proceedings and ruling, allowing parties to refile in the competent court after proper joinder.
Source excerpt
The High Court's decision refusing to remove the arbitrator was interlocutory as it did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties in the arbitration; therefore, section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act bars an appeal to the Court of Appeal on such a decision.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that no appeal lay from an interlocutory ruling that did not finally determine the criminal charge, nullifying the High Court proceedings.
The appeal was incompetent as it challenged an interlocutory decision that did not finally determine the criminal charge, contrary to section 359(3) CPA; proceedings before the Resident Magistrate's Court were nullified and the matter remitted to the District Court.
Source excerpt
The appeal was incompetent as it challenged an interlocutory decision that did not finally determine the criminal charge, contrary to section 359(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The proceedings before the Resident Magistrate's Court were nullified and the matter remitted to the District Court for continuation of trial.
Source excerpt
The appeal is incompetent because the judicial decision in Joseph Steven Gwaza, which declared section 6(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act void to the extent of allowing the DPP to appeal interlocutory orders, applies retrospectively to pending cases, including this one, as it is a procedural change. Thus, the DPP cannot appeal the interlocutory order in question.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed TANROADS’ labour revision as interlocutory, holding that revision was barred because the CMA ruling did not finally determine the dispute.
The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution should have been heard before rejection of a machete exhibit, and struck out the respondents’ cross-appeals.
The trial judge's rejection of the exhibit 'panga' without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice and was not supported by section 192 of the Criminal Procedure Act or relevant rules. The exhibit was mentioned in the summary of facts and committal proceedings, and its exclusion was improper. Respondents' cross appeals against interlocutory orders are prohibited by law.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a land appeal, holding that the respondent’s fresh tribunal case was barred by res judicata after an earlier dismissal.
Explore more
