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 filed after the expiry of the thirty days granted for extension of time, rendering it time-barred and incompetent; the proper remedy is to strike out the appeal.
Source excerpt
The appeal was incompetent for being time barred and the circumstances did not warrant the Court's exercise of revisionary powers; thus, the appeal was struck out with costs.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land appeal as time-barred, finding it was filed two days outside the 45-day limit under the Land Disputes Courts Act.
The Court of Appeal struck out this land-related civil appeal as time-barred because the appellant filed invalid certificates of delay and missed the filing deadline.
The High Court held that the District Land and Housing Tribunal wrongly struck out a land appeal without hearing the parties and remitted the matter for rehearing.
The appeal was time barred as it was filed more than three years after the notice of appeal without a certificate of delay, contrary to Rule 90(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. Rule 96(7) cannot be invoked to cure this defect as the certificate of delay was never obtained.
Source excerpt
After an appeal is struck out, all documents in the record, including leave to appeal, are rendered void. A fresh notice of appeal and a fresh application for leave must be filed in compliance with Rule 46(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules and section 47(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act. Failure to do so renders the subsequent appeal incompetent.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to comply with the court's order to amend the existing record of appeal by filing a fresh record instead, which is not an amendment. As the order was not complied with, the appeal must be struck out.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out an application to strike out a criminal notice of appeal, holding the application misconceived because the appeal was already instituted by notice.
The Court of Appeal struck out the intended appeal because the notice of appeal was not served on the applicant as required by Rule 77(1).
Explore more
