Celina Mhumbila v Pindoria

Celina Mhumbila v Pindoria

The suit is barred by res judicata as the cause of action and parties are substantially the same as Land Case No. 210 of 2022, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, amounting to final determination. The first plaintiff's legal capacity was not properly pleaded, rendering the plaint incompetent. The plaint is defective for being lodged by a party not recognised in law.

Citation
Celina Mhumbila v Pindoria
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Celina Malu Mhumbila; 2nd Plaintiff: Deogratias Felix Mhumbila; 1st Defendant: Premji R. Pindoria; 2nd Defendant: M/S Dezo Civil Contractors Co Ltd; 3rd Defendant: Diamond Trust Bank Tanzania
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Res Subjudice, Locus Standi, Breach of Contract, Capacity to Sue, Pleadings Verification
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Mental Health Law Res Judicata Res Subjudice Locus Standi Breach of Contract Capacity to Sue +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Celina Malu Mhumbila

1st Plaintiff

Deogratias Felix Mhumbila

2nd Plaintiff

Premji R. Pindoria

1st Defendant

M/S Dezo Civil Contractors Co Ltd

2nd Defendant

Diamond Trust Bank Tanzania

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit is barred by res judicata or res subjudice
  2. 2 Whether the first plaintiff has legal capacity to sue
  3. 3 Whether the plaint is defective for lack of proper signature and verification

Ratio Decidendi

The suit is barred by res judicata as the cause of action and parties are substantially the same as Land Case No. 210 of 2022, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, amounting to final determination. The first plaintiff's legal capacity was not properly pleaded, rendering the plaint incompetent. The plaint is defective for being lodged by a party not recognised in law.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed

Orders

  • Suit dismissed for being res judicata
  • Costs awarded to defendants