mohemed abdiallah nur others vs hamad masauni others 2022 tzca 546 7 september 2022

mohemed abdiallah nur others vs hamad masauni others 2022 tzca 546 7 september 2022

The application was incompetent because the 1st and 2nd applicants did not file affidavits in support of the application as required by Rule 49(1) of the Rules. The affidavit filed by the principal officer of the 3rd and 4th applicants did not expressly state it was on behalf of the 1st and 2nd applicants, and the omission was fatal. The overriding objective principle cannot be invoked to cure non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.

Citation
mohemed abdiallah nur others vs hamad masauni others 2022 tzca 546 7 september 2022
Parties
1st Applicant: Mohamed Abdillah Nur; 2nd Applicant: Ummul Kheri Mohamed; 3rd Applicant: Wings Flight Services Ltd; 4th Applicant: Africa Flight Services; 1st Respondent: Hamad Masauni; 2nd Respondent: Arthur Mosha; 3rd Respondent: Juma Mabakila
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
7 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Affidavits in Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents.
Legal Topics
Affidavits, Stay of Execution, Preliminary Objection, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Affidavits Stay of Execution Preliminary Objection Procedural Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Abdillah Nur

1st Applicant

Ummul Kheri Mohamed

2nd Applicant

Wings Flight Services Ltd

3rd Applicant

Africa Flight Services

4th Applicant

Hamad Masauni

1st Respondent

Arthur Mosha

2nd Respondent

Juma Mabakila

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Affidavits in Application for Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is incompetent for lack of affidavits by the 1st and 2nd applicants as required by Rule 49(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

Ratio Decidendi

The application was incompetent because the 1st and 2nd applicants did not file affidavits in support of the application as required by Rule 49(1) of the Rules. The affidavit filed by the principal officer of the 3rd and 4th applicants did not expressly state it was on behalf of the 1st and 2nd applicants, and the omission was fatal. The overriding objective principle cannot be invoked to cure non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.

Court Disposition

Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is sustained.
  • The application is struck out with costs to the respondents.