Court of Appeal of Tanzania

This is the highest level in the justice delivery system in Tanzania. The Court of Appeal draws its mandate from Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The Court hears appeals  on both point of law and facts for cases originating from the High Court of Tanzania and Magistrates with extended jurisdiction in exercise of their original jurisdiction or appellate and revisional jurisdiction over matters originating in the District Land and Housing Tribunals, District Courts and Courts of Resident Magistrate. The Court also hears similar appeals  from quasi judicial bodies of status equivalent to that of the High Court. It  further hears appeals  on point of law against the decision of the High Court in  matters originating from Primary Courts. The Court of Appeal also exercises jurisdiction on appeals originating from the High Court of Zanzibar except for constitutional issues arising from the interpretation of the Constitution of Zanzibar and matters arising from the Kadhi Court.

Physical address
26 Kivukoni Road Building P.O. Box 9004, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
2 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
2 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
September 2013
Reported
Application for extension of time struck out for non-compliance with Rule 48(1) and for citing the wrong rule.
* Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Rule 48(1) — requirement that applications be by notice of motion supported by affidavit and cite the specific rule. * Procedural competence — improper mode of application (chamber application vs notice of motion) — consequences of non-compliance. * Rule citation — citing a general rule (Rule 47) instead of the specific rule for extension of time (Rule 10) — renders application incompetent.
10 September 2013
Extension application struck out for being filed as a chamber application and citing the wrong rule.
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 48(1) mandatory form of application; requirement for notice of motion supported by affidavit; necessity to cite specific rule; improper use of chamber application; citing wrong rule (Rule 47 instead of Rule 10) renders application incompetent and subject to striking out.
10 September 2013