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
Restoration of an application dismissed for being time-barred is not maintainable; the proper remedy is appeal, review, or revision, not a fresh application for restoration.
Source excerpt
The application was filed out of time because the requisite court fee was paid on 7 January 2025, which was beyond the 30-day limitation period from the date of dismissal (4 December 2024), and no explanation for the delay was provided; thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Source excerpt
The trial chairman's act of dismissing Application No. 9 of 2020 for nonappearance instead of composing judgment at the judgment stage was illegal and constituted sufficient ground for extension of time. The illegality was apparent on the face of the record and should have been considered by the tribunal.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed a land-related appeal, holding that the High Court dismissed a restoration application without hearing the parties, violating natural justice and fair hearing rights.
The applicant's old age and health problems, supported by uncontroverted evidence, constituted sufficient cause for her late appearance. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order and readmit the application.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred by failing to consider the credible and substantiated explanation of the appellants' counsel's sudden illness, supported by a medical chit, and the impracticality of communicating the illness to the court or clients given the short notice. Sickness, when proven, is sufficient cause for non-appearance, and the refusal to restore the application was unjustified.
Source excerpt
The High Court’s Land Division set aside a dismissal order and restored a land application after accepting counsel’s sudden illness as sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Applicant failed to substantiate the alleged accident with credible evidence; medical chit did not prove incapacity on hearing date; no police report or supporting affidavit from Court Clerk; absence not justified; restoration of dismissed application denied.
Source excerpt
The preliminary objections lack merit as Order IX Rule 3 does not apply to the present application and the omission of the place in the jurat is not a fatal defect. The advocate's absence was justified due to dock brief assignment, constituting sufficient reason to set aside the dismissal order.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a fresh application for extension of time, holding that after dismissal for want of prosecution the proper step was restoration, not refiling.
Explore more
