aidan george nyongo vs magesse machenga others 2024 tzca 147 1 march 2024

aidan george nyongo vs magesse machenga others 2024 tzca 147 1 march 2024

The application for review was dismissed because the grounds raised did not constitute manifest error, deprivation of hearing, or nullity as required under Rule 66(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules. The affidavit was competent as it was sworn by a person with knowledge of the facts. The applicant's arguments were attempts to re-argue the merits, which is not permissible in review.

Citation
aidan george nyongo vs magesse machenga others 2024 tzca 147 1 march 2024
Parties
Applicant: Aidan George Nyongo; 1st Respondent: Magesse Machenga; 2nd Respondent: Commissioner for Lands; 3rd Respondent: Registrar of Titles; 4th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Review of Appellate Decisions, Double Allocation of Land, Right of Occupancy, Affidavit Competence, Opportunity to Be Heard
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Review of Appellate Decisions Double Allocation of Land Right of Occupancy Affidavit Competence Opportunity to Be Heard

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aidan George Nyongo

Applicant

Magesse Machenga

1st Respondent

Commissioner for Lands

2nd Respondent

Registrar of Titles

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for review is competent when supported by an affidavit of a non-party with knowledge of facts
  2. 2 Whether manifest error on the face of record, deprivation of right to be heard, or nullity exist to warrant review of the Court's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was dismissed because the grounds raised did not constitute manifest error, deprivation of hearing, or nullity as required under Rule 66(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules. The affidavit was competent as it was sworn by a person with knowledge of the facts. The applicant's arguments were attempts to re-argue the merits, which is not permissible in review.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondents