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 partly allowed a probate appeal, restoring two administrators and setting aside post-appointment objection proceedings for lack of proved authority.
The High Court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the estate of a deceased Muslim and quashed the probate proceedings and grant of letters of administration.
The High Court allowed an appeal over a closed probate cause, set aside the District Court’s refusal of revision, and ordered the probate proceedings reopened.
The revision was filed outside the extended 14-day period granted by the court. The law does not permit exclusion of public holidays or weekends unless the last day falls on such a day. The applicant did not seek further extension and cannot rely on the oxygen principle to override statutory time limits. Therefore, the preliminary objection is upheld and the revision is struck out as time-barred.
Source excerpt
All grounds raised by the applicant lack merit; the executing court acted within its powers, complied with legal requirements for execution and auction, and no credible evidence was provided to support the applicant's claims. The application for revision is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The adjournments dated 13.1.2025 and 17.1.2025 in bail proceedings were unjustifiable in terms of span and reasons, violating the applicant's right to timely justice. The High Court has jurisdiction to revise such proceedings even absent a final decision, and directs expeditious determination of bail objections.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a civil revision application as incompetent, holding that it could not revise an interlocutory order re-admitting an appeal in the District Court.
The High Court cannot entertain revision of interlocutory orders in pending cases under section 44(1)(b) of the MCA and section 79(1) of the CPC, as such orders do not finally determine the rights of the parties. Supervisory powers under section 44(1)(a) of the MCA are exercisable only suo moto by the court, not by application. The application is therefore incompetent.
Source excerpt
The High Court at Songea granted the Attorney General 14 days to file an out-of-time revision application, finding sufficient cause and no order as to costs.
The application for revision was filed beyond the prescribed sixty days limitation period for decisions delivered in 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2021, rendering it time-barred and depriving the court of jurisdiction. The application was omnibus and improperly filed, and the court is not obliged to determine incompetent matters on merit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
