LAND REVIEW NO

LAND REVIEW NO

The court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the appellate judgment, as the appellate judge's decision was based not only on procedural irregularity but also on the merits of the evidence. The applicant's ground required detailed argument and was not self-evident. Therefore, review was not warranted and the application was dismissed.

Citation
LAND REVIEW NO
Parties
Applicant: Ali Hasnain Mohamed Gulamhussein; 1st Respondent: Murtaza Rashid; 2nd Respondent: Azania Bank Limited; 3rd Respondent: Mark Auctioneers and Court Brokers Company Limited
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Land Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Procedural Irregularity, Retrial, Error Apparent on Face of Record
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Review of Judgment Procedural Irregularity Retrial Error Apparent on Face of Record

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Hasnain Mohamed Gulamhussein

Applicant

Murtaza Rashid

1st Respondent

Azania Bank Limited

2nd Respondent

Mark Auctioneers and Court Brokers Company Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review of the appellate judgment
  2. 2 Whether failure to order a retrial after quashing trial proceedings constituted a reviewable error

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the appellate judgment, as the appellate judge's decision was based not only on procedural irregularity but also on the merits of the evidence. The applicant's ground required detailed argument and was not self-evident. Therefore, review was not warranted and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for review is dismissed with costs