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 application was dismissed because the applicant failed to cite the decision sought to be challenged and did not demonstrate any points of law warranting the Court of Appeal's intervention, even assuming the application was properly before the court.
Source excerpt
Delay was caused by the court's failure to provide judgment and decree copies, which constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time under Section 11(1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
Source excerpt
The application is incurably defective because it is supported by a supplementary affidavit instead of an affidavit as required by Order XLIII Rule 2 of the CPC. Once pleadings are amended, the previous affidavit is no longer material, and the supplementary affidavit cannot supplement a non-existent affidavit. The court is not properly moved and cannot consider the merits.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out an application for extension of time to appeal because supporting affidavits misstated the ruling date as 13 November 2013.
The High Court struck out a defective joint defence that was neither verified nor dated, holding the omission fatal rather than a curable technicality.
A plaint signed by a qualified advocate is not defective under sections 43 and 44 of the Advocates Act; the preliminary objection is without merit and is overruled.
Source excerpt
The trial court erred in law by raising and determining a point of law (cause of action) suo motu without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, thereby breaching the principle of natural justice.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that new issues cannot be raised on appeal, the respondent’s daughter could represent her, and no basis existed to disturb concurrent findings.
The High Court at Mbeya struck out an application for leave to seek leave to appeal out of time because it was brought under the wrong provision of law.
Omission to include the appeal number and discrepancies in filing dates on the written submissions did not prejudice the respondent or prevent him from replying, and thus do not justify dismissal of the appeal; both limbs of the preliminary objection lack merit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
