aeshi hilary others vs norbert joseph yamsebo 2012 tzca 116 8 october 2012

aeshi hilary others vs norbert joseph yamsebo 2012 tzca 116 8 october 2012

The record of proceedings relating to the application for determination of the amount payable as security for costs is a vital document under Rule 96(1)(k) of the Rules. Its omission from the record of appeal renders the consolidated appeals incompetent and they are accordingly struck out.

Citation
aeshi hilary others vs norbert joseph yamsebo 2012 tzca 116 8 october 2012
Parties
Appellant: Aeshi Hilary; Appellant: The Attorney General; Appellant: Justus Kasalama; Appellant: Vitus Kapufi; Respondent: Norbert Joseph Yamsebo
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
8 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (consolidated) / Ruling on Competence of Appeal
Outcome
appeals struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Record of Appeal, Competence of Appeal, Election Petition
Source Language
English
Election Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Record of Appeal Competence of Appeal Election Petition

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aeshi Hilary

Appellant

The Attorney General

Appellant

Justus Kasalama

Appellant

Vitus Kapufi

Appellant

Norbert Joseph Yamsebo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (consolidated) / Ruling on Competence of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission of the record of proceedings relating to the application for determination of the amount payable as security for costs renders the appeal incompetent under Rule 96(1)(k) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.

Ratio Decidendi

The record of proceedings relating to the application for determination of the amount payable as security for costs is a vital document under Rule 96(1)(k) of the Rules. Its omission from the record of appeal renders the consolidated appeals incompetent and they are accordingly struck out.

Court Disposition

appeals struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The consolidated appeals are struck out for want of an essential document under Rule 96(1)(k) of the Rules.
  • No order as to costs.