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 held that the plaintiff’s arrest and detention were lawful and dismissed her tort claim for false imprisonment and related damages.
The appellant failed to prove that the respondents made a fictitious report to the police or were responsible for his arrest and injuries. Both lower courts made concurrent findings that the report was not made by the respondents and that there was probable cause for suspicion. There was no basis to disturb these findings. The principle of vicarious liability did not apply as the necessary connection was not established.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a claim for malicious prosecution, unlawful arrest, and detention, holding that the arrest was lawful and malice was not proved.
The Plaintiff failed to prove that his arrest and detention were unlawful or that the prosecution was malicious or without reasonable and probable cause. The evidence supported the lawfulness of the arrest and prosecution, and the Plaintiff did not call material witnesses to corroborate his claims. Consequently, the Plaintiff is not entitled to damages or reliefs claimed.
Source excerpt
Plaintiff failed to prove unlawful arrest or confinement, and failed to provide credible evidence of battery or torture. Mere allegations unsupported by medical or police evidence are insufficient. Plaintiff's conduct justified lawful arrest; no tort established.
Source excerpt
Plaintiff failed to prove unlawful arrest, confinement, battery, or torture to the required legal standard; mere allegations unsupported by evidence are insufficient.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a civil claim for damages, holding that the plaintiff’s arrest and remand were supported by probable cause and were lawful.
The trial court erred by assessing damages based on the respondent's presumed ability to pay and the principle of appeasement rather than compensating for the actual humiliation and infringement of the appellant's rights. The appellate court reassessed damages to reflect the seriousness of the unlawful arrest and public humiliation.
Source excerpt
The trial court erred by assessing damages based on the respondent's presumed ability to pay and an incorrect principle of appeasement, rather than compensating for the actual humiliation and infringement of rights suffered by the appellant. The appellate court reassessed damages to reflect the seriousness of the unlawful arrest and public humiliation.
Source excerpt
The High Court increased damages for unlawful arrest after finding the trial court used the wrong principle of appeasement instead of compensation.
Explore more
