alfred sukari vs jane mwamwindi others 2019 tzhc 15791 2 october 2019

alfred sukari vs jane mwamwindi others 2019 tzhc 15791 2 october 2019

The Tribunal erred by relying on annexures to pleadings in determining the preliminary objection, improperly dismissed the application instead of striking it out, and failed to base its jurisdictional ruling on proper submissions and pleadings; the preliminary objection was not a pure point of law and should have been determined on merits.

Citation
alfred sukari vs jane mwamwindi others 2019 tzhc 15791 2 october 2019
Parties
Appellant: Alfred Sukari; 1st Respondent: Jane Mwamwindi; 2nd Respondent: UTT Microfinance PLC; 3rd Respondent: Mashango Court Brokers; 4th Respondent: Baton Swila
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
ruling and proceedings of the DLHT quashed; matter remitted for trial on merits; costs awarded to appellant
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Jurisdiction, Dismissal Vs Striking Out, Determination on Merits
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Preliminary Objection Jurisdiction Dismissal Vs Striking Out Determination on Merits

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

Parties

Alfred Sukari

Appellant

Jane Mwamwindi

1st Respondent

UTT Microfinance PLC

2nd Respondent

Mashango Court Brokers

3rd Respondent

Baton Swila

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred by relying on annexures to pleadings in determining preliminary objection
  2. 2 Whether dismissal instead of striking out was proper for a preliminary objection not based on limitation
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and if the ruling was based on proper grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred by relying on annexures to pleadings in determining the preliminary objection, improperly dismissed the application instead of striking it out, and failed to base its jurisdictional ruling on proper submissions and pleadings; the preliminary objection was not a pure point of law and should have been determined on merits.

Court Disposition

ruling and proceedings of the DLHT quashed; matter remitted for trial on merits; costs awarded to appellant

Orders

  • Quash the ruling and proceedings of the DLHT
  • Order the matter be tried in the DLHT on merits