mbeya cement co ltd vs mary mchome and amos mwambo as joint administrates of the estate of the late gilliad mbwambo 2010 tzhccomd 13 2 november 2010

mbeya cement co ltd vs mary mchome and amos mwambo as joint administrates of the estate of the late gilliad mbwambo 2010 tzhccomd 13 2 november 2010

The grounds advanced by the applicant do not constitute errors apparent on the face of the record but rather amount to alleged erroneous decisions or require lengthy reasoning and examination of extraneous matters, which are not within the scope of review under Order XLII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to rehear or correct alleged erroneous decisions.

Citation
mbeya cement co ltd vs mary mchome and amos mwambo as joint administrates of the estate of the late gilliad mbwambo 2010 tzhccomd 13 2 november 2010
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Mbeya Cement Co. Ltd; 1st Defendant/applicant: Mary Mchome Mbwambo and Amos Mwambo (as Joint Administrators of the Estate of the late Gilliad Mbwambo)
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Default Judgment / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Default Judgment, Error Apparent on the Face of the Record, Fraud, Proper Service of Summons
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Judgment Default Judgment Error Apparent on the Face of the Record Fraud Proper Service of Summons

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbeya Cement Co. Ltd

Applicant/respondent

Mary Mchome Mbwambo and Amos Mwambo (as Joint Administrators of the Estate of the late Gilliad Mbwambo)

1st Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Default Judgment / Ruling on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the default judgment and decree dated 27th March 2006
  2. 2 Whether the default judgment was entered contrary to the Civil Procedure Code provisions regarding service and time for defence
  3. 3 Whether allegations of fraud and collusion justify review of the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds advanced by the applicant do not constitute errors apparent on the face of the record but rather amount to alleged erroneous decisions or require lengthy reasoning and examination of extraneous matters, which are not within the scope of review under Order XLII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to rehear or correct alleged erroneous decisions.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs; each party to bear own costs