Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZCA

20130319 TZCA Mwanza

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal is incompetent for lack of a drawn order and absence of a certificate of delay from the District Registrar; therefore, it must be struck out.

Court disposition

appeal struck out for incompetence

Orders

  • appeal struck out
  • no order as to costs

02

Material facts

Parties

Alli Chamani

Appellant

Karagwe District Council

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Aloyce Mbonito

Columbus Paul

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Aaron Kabunga

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Appeal / Order on Preliminary Objection Regarding Competency

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the appeal is competent in the absence of a drawn order and certificate of delay

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant conceded that the appeal was incompetent for not being accompanied by a drawn order and for lack of a certificate from the District Registrar regarding exclusion of time.
Respondent
The second respondent had no objection to the application to strike out the appeal but prayed for costs, leaving the matter to the discretion of the Court.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court of Appeal Rules

    An appeal must be accompanied by a drawn order as required by Rule 96(1)(h).

  2. 02

    Court of Appeal Rules

    A certificate of delay from the District Registrar is required to rely on Rule 90(1) for exclusion of time.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal is incompetent for lack of a drawn order and absence of a certificate of delay from the District Registrar; therefore, it must be struck out.

Court disposition

appeal struck out for incompetence

  • appeal struck out
  • no order as to costs

Source and reliance status

TZCA · 19 March 2013

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZCA

Judgment· 19 March 2013

20130319 TZCA Mwanza

; ' ·,

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA

ATMWANZA (CORAM: MBAROUK, J.A., BWANA, J.A., And MUSSA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2012 ALLI CHAMANI •••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• APPELLA.NT

VERSUS 1. KARAGWE DISTRICT COUNCIL } 2. COLUMBUS PAUL - ................... ~··········RESPONDENTS (Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Bukoba) (Mjemmas, J.) dated the 11th day of May, 2011 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 21 of 2009

ORDER OF THE COURT MUSSA, J.A.: When the matter came for hearing today, the appellant, appeared in person. The second respondent had the services of Mr. Aaron Kabunga who was also holding brief for Mr. Aloyce Mbonito, learned senior state attorney for the first respondent. Upon the court raising the issue of the competency of the appeal, the appellant conceded before us that, indeed, the appeal was incompetent for not being accompanied by a drawn order and for lack of a certificate from the District Registrar with respect to exclusion of time required for the preparation of the record. To this application Mr. Kabunga had no objection except that he prayed for costs, a matter which he left for the discretion of the Court. For our part we. are satisfied that the appeal is incompetent for lack of a drawn order as required by Rule 96(1) (h). Likewise, the appellant has not shown entitlement to rely on the provisions of Rule 90(1) much as there is no certificate of delay from the District Registrar. On the premises, the appeal is struck out for incompetence but given the circumstances of the matter; we give no order for costs. DATED at MWANZA this 19th day of March, 2013. S. J. MBAROUK

JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. J. BWANA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL K. M. MUSSA

JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. --· -- 1 ~ - - P. W. BAMPIKYA \t i SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR \\W.. t·<;,. COURT OF APPEAL •~,, ( ~"'-'!:'., __ __,,,... 7'·/ ',, '",~'"-. ..r: ,...,.,,,·;"' . ,~,.~.;;-~--~-_;;;;.,.;;;.:~ 2

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Court of Appeal Rules Rule 96(1)(h)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Court of Appeal Rules Rule 90(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.