Tanzania Case Law

judgment Maganya New

Court

TANZLII

The High Court's jurisdiction to hear and determine constitutional petitions is strictly limited by statutory timelines. The ninety-day period for hearing and determination starts from the date of assignment by the Principal Judge or Judge in-charge, not from the date of determination of competence. Once ninety days lapse, the court's jurisdiction ceases by effluxion of time. Rule 15(1) of the Rules is inconsistent with Section 10 of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act and must be amended to conform to the parent law.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Statutory interpretation
• Subsidiary legislation
• Time limits
• Constitutional challenge

Read case analysis

MISC

Court

TANZLII

The preliminary objection on late service does not raise a pure point of law as its determination requires evidence regarding dates of filing, endorsement, and service, which are not available to the court. Therefore, the objection is overruled.

Source excerpt

• Service of process
• Time limits
• Preliminary objections
• Advocates remuneration order

Read case analysis

CIVIL APPLICATION NO 36 OF 2023 IRENE MALANGA VS PATRICK CHRISTOPHER ODWER

Court

TANZLII

Failure to serve the applicant with a copy of the letter requesting certified copies of documents for appeal purposes within 30 days of the impugned decision is a fatal irregularity under Rule 89(2) of the Rules, warranting the striking out of the notice of appeal.

Source excerpt

• Notice of appeal
• Service of documents
• Time limits
• Matrimonial property division

Read case analysis

belghuith v tunisian republic application 0022022 2022 afchpr 69 23 2022

Court

TANZLII

The African Court found the application inadmissible for failure to comply with procedural requirements and/or time limits under the Court’s Rules and Protocol.

• Procedure
• Admissibility
• Time limits
• Human-rights-law
• Time-limits

Read case analysis

sophia amir mrisho vs omar amir mrisho others 2019 tzca 680 25 march 2019

Court

TZCA

The respondents failed to prove service of the letter applying for proceedings on the applicant, thus cannot rely on the exception to the 60-day rule. The notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn under Rule 91(a).

Source excerpt

• Appeals
• Service of documents
• Time limits
• Withdrawal of notice of appeal

Read case analysis

sophia amir mrisho vs omar amir mrisho others 2019 tzca 83 20 march 2019

Court

TZCA

The respondents failed to prove service of the letter applying for proceedings on the applicant as required by Rule 90(2). Consequently, they cannot rely on the exception to the 60-day rule, and the notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn under Rule 91(a).

Source excerpt

• Appeals
• Service of documents
• Time limits

Read case analysis

mapesa said matambo another vs rose ally nyabange 2017 tzca 190 25 august 2017

Court

TZCA

The Court of Appeal struck out a notice of appeal after finding the respondent had not shown compliance with the rules governing time for instituting the appeal.

• Notice of appeal
• Time limits
• Striking out
• Appeal procedure
• Civil-procedure
• Notice-of-appeal

Read case analysis

iain pattie associates ltd vs wellworth hotels lodges ltd 2017 tzca 215 25 august 2017

Court

TZCA

Omission to include in the record of appeal the letter by the appellant applying for copies of proceedings, ruling, and drawn order of the High Court makes the record of appeal incomplete and renders the appeal incompetent. The appeal is therefore struck out with costs.

Source excerpt

• Record of appeal
• Preliminary objection
• Competency of appeal
• Mandatory documents
• Time limits

Read case analysis

eneriko kakala vs mohamed mussa 2017 tzca 166 22 march 2017

Court

TZCA

The Court of Appeal struck out a review application for late service of the notice of motion, holding that Rule 66(4) required service within 14 days and that noncompliance was fatal.

• Service of process
• Court of appeal rules
• Preliminary objection
• Time limits
• Civil-procedure
• Service-of-process

Read case analysis

20170217 TZCA Dar es Salaam

Court

TZCA

The Court of Appeal struck out a review application for failure to serve the notice of motion within 14 days as required by Rule 66(4).

• Service of process
• Time limits
• Preliminary objections
• Court of appeal rules
• Civil-procedure
• Service-of-process

Read case analysis