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 set aside the first appellate court’s judgment, holding that territorial jurisdiction had been found on facts not pleaded or proved in the trial record.
The High Court held that Biharamulo District Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over offences committed in Chato District, quashed the conviction, and ordered a fresh trial in Chato District Court.
The District Land and Housing Tribunal of Geita lacked jurisdiction over cases from Sengerema after the establishment of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Sengerema by Government Notice No. 545 of 2016, effective 1 April 2016. Consequently, the High Court Geita Sub Registry also lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal arising from Sengerema. All proceedings and orders are nullified for want of jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
Both the trial and appellate courts lacked territorial jurisdiction as the deceased's place of abode and property were in Tabora, not Mwanza. All proceedings and orders are void ab initio for want of jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The district court erred by failing to address the issue of territorial jurisdiction and by not providing separate reasoning for each ground of appeal; therefore, its judgment must be quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh decision addressing all issues.
Source excerpt
Second appeal over jurisdiction, locus standi, and proof of a partnership-based claim for TZS 10,000,000. The High Court upheld the lower courts and dismissed the appeal with costs.
The High Court held Masanze Primary Court lacked jurisdiction to appoint the plaintiff as administrator, because the deceased’s fixed abode was within Ruaha KII Primary Court’s area.
The CMA Ilala lacked territorial jurisdiction because the cause of action arose in Kibiti, Coastal Region, and the dispute should have been filed there as per Rule 22(1) of GN. No. 64/2007.
Source excerpt
The cause of action in employment disputes arises at the employee's place of work. Since the misconduct and termination occurred at Kurasini, Temeke, CMA Kinondoni lacked territorial jurisdiction. Proceedings and award at CMA Kinondoni are null and void.
Source excerpt
CMA Dar es Salaam lacked territorial jurisdiction over disputes arising in Manyara and Kilimanjaro, and improper admission and endorsement of exhibits rendered proceedings a nullity. The court has no power to nullify employer's disciplinary proceedings.
Source excerpt
Explore more
