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 struck out a land suit as premature because the plaintiffs failed to serve mandatory 90-day statutory notice on all required government defendants.
The High Court struck out a land suit for failure to serve a proper statutory notice under section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act.
Failure to serve the mandatory 90 days' statutory notice of intention to sue on government defendants renders the suit incompetent and liable to be struck out, regardless of whether government officers are sued jointly with non-government parties.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land suit for failure to serve a fresh statutory notice on government defendants before filing.
The suit was filed prematurely and is incompetent because the plaintiff failed to serve the mandatory 90 days' statutory notice of intention to sue to the 1st defendant as required by section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act; service to the Attorney General and Solicitor General alone is insufficient.
Source excerpt
The suit was struck out for non-compliance with the mandatory statutory notice requirement under Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, as the Plaintiff failed to adequately aver and evidence service of notice to all relevant Defendants.
Source excerpt
The application for leave to appeal is meritorious as it raises contentious legal issues regarding the addition of a new party at the appellate stage and the applicability of the Government Proceedings Act’s notice requirement in appeals against the Registrar of Titles. These issues are arguable and warrant consideration by the Court of Appeal.
Source excerpt
The plaintiff did not serve the statutory notice of intention to sue to the Attorney General as required by section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act. Failure to serve the notice renders the suit incompetent and premature, warranting its striking out.
Source excerpt
The Plaintiffs' failure to serve the mandatory 90-days' notice on the 1st and 6th Defendants, and the Solicitor General, as required by statute, is a fatal defect that renders the suit incompetent.
Source excerpt
Serving a 30 days' notice instead of 90 days to the 1st defendant is not fatal where the suit was instituted after the expiration of 90 days, thus complying with the statutory requirement. The objection is without merit and is overruled.
Source excerpt
Explore more
