abel pea vs respicious ishengoma ta bin attorney and 2 others 2021 tzhclandd 6744 28 june 2021

abel pea vs respicious ishengoma ta bin attorney and 2 others 2021 tzhclandd 6744 28 june 2021

The appeal is devoid of merit as the matter in Land Application No. 242 of 2018 is res judicata, having been finally determined in Land Application No. 143 of 2009 and subsequent appeals; the parties and subject matter are the same or substantially the same, and granting the reliefs sought would contradict previous judgments.

Citation
abel pea vs respicious ishengoma ta bin attorney and 2 others 2021 tzhclandd 6744 28 june 2021
Parties
Appellant: Abel Pea; 1st Respondent: Respicus Ishengoma t/a Bin Attorneys; 2nd Respondent: George Namwambe t/a Genesis Auction Mart & Debt Collectors; 3rd Respondent: Hussein Nduguta Kasongelo
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Ownership of Land, Injunctions
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Res Judicata Ownership of Land Injunctions

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abel Pea

Appellant

Respicus Ishengoma t/a Bin Attorneys

1st Respondent

George Namwambe t/a Genesis Auction Mart & Debt Collectors

2nd Respondent

Hussein Nduguta Kasongelo

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit property in Land Application No. 242 of 2018 is res judicata in light of previous decisions
  2. 2 Whether the parties and subject matter are the same as in previous litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is devoid of merit as the matter in Land Application No. 242 of 2018 is res judicata, having been finally determined in Land Application No. 143 of 2009 and subsequent appeals; the parties and subject matter are the same or substantially the same, and granting the reliefs sought would contradict previous judgments.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the trial tribunal upheld
  • 3rd respondent ordered not to disturb the appellant on the suit area as neither has ownership