Multi-Party Litigation in Tanzania: A Case for Class Action Suits

N. Kitonka
{"title":"Multi-Party Litigation in Tanzania: A Case for Class Action Suits","authors":"N. Kitonka","doi":"10.47604/ijlp.1863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: In suits involving numerous parties, legal technicalities are involved. Such suits call for special litigation devices. Multiparty litigation devices in Tanzania can take different forms such as joinder, next of kin, representative suits and class action suits. However, representative suit is currently the main means of handling claims for compensation involving large groups of similarly affected victims. \nMethodology: This study carries out an appraisal of the legal framework in Tanzania concerning multiparty litigation devices. It is shown that too strict an adherence to same interest and locus standi requirements in Tanzania makes multiparty litigation devices too restrictive. In addition, multiparty litigation devices for group actions are not clearly provided for. \nFindings: Litigation devices have a great potential of helping parties to realize effective right to remedy. In order for litigation devices to effectively play that role, they should be friendly, timely and affordable. Similarly, such devices should be properly managed and clearly provided for under legislations.   \nUnique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Currently, a representative suit in Tanzania is interchangeably used both in public interest litigation and group action. In order to guarantee proper management of group actions, a case for class action rules is made. Indeed, a call for reform of the legal framework is recommended in this study to the effect that class action rules should be enacted in form of regulations or under a specific legislation.","PeriodicalId":38248,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Law and Policy","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Public Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47604/ijlp.1863","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: In suits involving numerous parties, legal technicalities are involved. Such suits call for special litigation devices. Multiparty litigation devices in Tanzania can take different forms such as joinder, next of kin, representative suits and class action suits. However, representative suit is currently the main means of handling claims for compensation involving large groups of similarly affected victims. Methodology: This study carries out an appraisal of the legal framework in Tanzania concerning multiparty litigation devices. It is shown that too strict an adherence to same interest and locus standi requirements in Tanzania makes multiparty litigation devices too restrictive. In addition, multiparty litigation devices for group actions are not clearly provided for. Findings: Litigation devices have a great potential of helping parties to realize effective right to remedy. In order for litigation devices to effectively play that role, they should be friendly, timely and affordable. Similarly, such devices should be properly managed and clearly provided for under legislations.   Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Currently, a representative suit in Tanzania is interchangeably used both in public interest litigation and group action. In order to guarantee proper management of group actions, a case for class action rules is made. Indeed, a call for reform of the legal framework is recommended in this study to the effect that class action rules should be enacted in form of regulations or under a specific legislation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
坦桑尼亚的多方诉讼:一起集体诉讼案件
目的:在涉及众多当事人的诉讼中,涉及法律技术问题。这类诉讼需要特殊的诉讼手段。坦桑尼亚的多方诉讼方式有共同诉讼、近亲属诉讼、代表诉讼和集体诉讼等多种形式。但是,代表诉讼目前是处理涉及大批同样受影响的受害者的赔偿要求的主要手段。方法:本研究对坦桑尼亚有关多方诉讼装置的法律框架进行了评估。研究表明,在坦桑尼亚,过于严格地遵守相同利益和所在地标准的要求,使得多方诉讼手段过于具有限制性。此外,对集体诉讼的多方诉讼手段也没有明确规定。结论:诉讼手段在帮助当事人实现有效的救济权利方面具有很大的潜力。为了使诉讼工具有效地发挥这一作用,它们应该是友好的、及时的和负担得起的。同样,这些装置应得到适当管理,并在立法中明确规定。在理论、实践和政策上的独特贡献:目前,坦桑尼亚的代表诉讼在公益诉讼和集体诉讼中交替使用。为了保证对集体诉讼的妥善管理,本文对集体诉讼规则进行了论证。事实上,本研究建议对法律框架进行改革,大意是集体诉讼规则应以条例的形式或在具体立法下颁布。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: IJPLAP covers issues of public law and policy of international relevance. It includes thought-provoking contributions on how public international law obligations inform national approaches in a wide range of sectors, as well as on how the state''s experiences contribute to shaping and advancing the international agenda. IJPLAP features articles, editorials, notes, commentaries, analyses of jurisprudence and legislation and book reviews written by leading scholars and practitioners working in law and related fields, such as economics, philosophy and political science. Topics covered include: -Traditional issues of public international law (including treaty law, institutional law and dispute settlement)- Human rights- Foreign and security policy, migration- Trade and investment- Taxation- Financial regulation- Competition- Intellectual property- Environment, energy and food security- Digitalisation and data protection
期刊最新文献
Policy Communities and Natural Disasters: Cyclone Eline and Idai in Zimbabwe Juridical Analysis of Farmer Group Legal Security Role of Divestment in Realizing the Welfare of Indonesian Civil and Political Rights in Constitutionality of Accommodation of Individual Candidates and Elimination of Presidential Thresholds from the Perspective of the 1945 Constitution Examining the Occupational Safety and Health Hazards encountered by Municipal Waste Collectors in Murewa Rural District Council, Zimbabwe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1