ally hamis khatibu vs gaming board of tanzania and another 2021 tzhc 6087 26 august 2021

ally hamis khatibu vs gaming board of tanzania and another 2021 tzhc 6087 26 august 2021

The application is incurably defective for want of a statement as required by Rule 5(2)(a) of the 2014 Rules and is also time barred under Rule 6, as the cause of action arose in 2017 and the application was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

Citation
ally hamis khatibu vs gaming board of tanzania and another 2021 tzhc 6087 26 august 2021
Parties
Applicant: Ally Hamis Khatibu; 1st Respondent: Gaming Board of Tanzania; 2nd Respondent: Premier Betting Entertainment Africa Limited
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
26 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (mandamus) / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Preliminary Objections, Limitation of Actions, Mandatory Procedural Requirements
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Preliminary Objections Limitation of Actions Mandatory Procedural Requirements

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ally Hamis Khatibu

Applicant

Gaming Board of Tanzania

1st Respondent

Premier Betting Entertainment Africa Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (mandamus) / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is fatally defective for want of a statement as required by Rule 5(2)(a) of the 2014 Rules
  2. 2 Whether the application is time barred under Rule 6 of the 2014 Rules
  3. 3 Whether the application is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process (functus officio)

Ratio Decidendi

The application is incurably defective for want of a statement as required by Rule 5(2)(a) of the 2014 Rules and is also time barred under Rule 6, as the cause of action arose in 2017 and the application was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.