20180714 TZCA Arusha 1

20180714 TZCA Arusha 1

The Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a manifest error on the face of the record in the prior decision. The alleged errors required a long drawn process of reasoning and did not meet the threshold for review. The Court had already addressed the relevant statutory provisions and the existence of a partnership in its original decision. Mere dissatisfaction or re-evaluation of evidence does not justify review.

Citation
20180714 TZCA Arusha 1
Parties
Applicant: Kitinda Kimaro; Respondent: Anthony Ngoo; Respondent: Davis Anthony Ngoo
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
14 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Review of Appellate Decisions, Manifest Error on the Face of the Record, Partnership Law, Interpretation of Contract Statutes
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Appellate Decisions Manifest Error on the Face of the Record Partnership Law Interpretation of Contract Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kitinda Kimaro

Applicant

Anthony Ngoo

Respondent

Davis Anthony Ngoo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court's prior decision contained a manifest error on the face of the record justifying review
  2. 2 Whether failure to consider certain statutory provisions constitutes a manifest error

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a manifest error on the face of the record in the prior decision. The alleged errors required a long drawn process of reasoning and did not meet the threshold for review. The Court had already addressed the relevant statutory provisions and the existence of a partnership in its original decision. Mere dissatisfaction or re-evaluation of evidence does not justify review.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs to the respondents.