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
Retrospective application of the procedural amendment requiring mediation certificate from the Ward Tribunal is not warranted in cases already pending and at an advanced stage, as it would prejudice substantive rights and cause undue delay contrary to overriding objectives and constitutional principles.
Source excerpt
Procedural amendments requiring joinder of the Attorney General and statutory notice apply retrospectively to all suits involving government agencies, including those instituted before the 2020 amendments. The suit is incompetent for failure to comply with these requirements and is not saved by section 22 of the Government Proceedings Act.
Source excerpt
The amendment to section 6(3) of the Government Proceedings Act, being procedural, would ordinarily apply retrospectively, but in the absence of clear legislative intent and to avoid injustice, it should not apply to cases filed before its enactment. Therefore, the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's case.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out an application for leave to appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction to hear a second bite after the High Court refused leave.
The respondent took all essential steps required by law at the material time; no procedural default occurred. The retrospective application of the procedural amendment would prejudice the respondent and is not warranted. The application to strike out the notice of appeal is without merit.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an application to extend time to seek leave to appeal, holding the delay was not justified because the request for copies of proceedings was itself late.
The appeal is incompetent because the order appealed from is improperly dated, failing to comply with Order XX Rule 7; the amendments by G.N. 223 of 2010 do not cure the defect in this case.
Source excerpt
The appeal is incompetent because the order appealed from is improperly dated, failing to comply with Order XX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. The 2010 amendment does not cure the defect as it creates confusion and does not apply to the facts of this case, where the date of extraction is not indicated and the order predates the amendment.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal after holding that the extracted order was improperly dated and the 2010 amendment to Order XX Rule 7 did not cure the defect.
Explore more
