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 lower courts’ decisions after finding the primary court proceedings were a nullity because some defendants were not properly heard.
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
The application was filed out of time as the applicant became aware of the execution proceedings on or before 27th January 2025 but filed the application on 28th February 2025. The supporting affidavit contained material falsehoods regarding the date of awareness, making it unsafe and incompetent to support the application. Without a valid affidavit, the application is incompetent and must be struck out.
Source excerpt
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
The Reference was filed one day after the two-month limitation period prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty, as calculated under Section 63 of the Laws of the Community (Interpretation) Act, 2004. This delay strips the Court of jurisdiction ratione temporis to hear and determine the Reference on its merits. The Court has no power to extend the time limited by the Treaty.
Source excerpt
The suit was struck out for failure to comply with section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, as plaintiffs neither served nor sent the required notice to the Attorney General, and this court follows its own precedents on mandatory compliance.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal after the District Court raised time limitation suo motu and struck out a revision without hearing the parties.
Revision was not a proper remedy as specific remedies to set aside ex-parte decisions and appeal against execution orders were available and not exhausted; application for revision was filed out of time.
Source excerpt
The appeal was filed within the ninety-day limitation period as the electronic filing system records show submission on 25th September 2024, which is the relevant date for timeliness under Rule 21(1) of the Electronic Filing Rules.
Source excerpt
The application discloses triable issues of fact and law regarding the payment and jurisdiction of service levies, and the applicant is entitled to leave to defend the summary suit, subject to depositing half of the claimed sum.
Source excerpt
Explore more
