amir r abdallah vs mohamed a wadi 2022 tzhc 15442 8 december 2022

amir r abdallah vs mohamed a wadi 2022 tzhc 15442 8 december 2022

The omission of 'Plot No. 2015 Block H Mbezi Medium Density Dar es Salaam' in the decree was not an accidental slip or omission within the meaning of section 96 of the CPC, as the judgment did not specifically grant such relief. Therefore, the trial court was justified in refusing to amend the decree under section 96.

Citation
amir r abdallah vs mohamed a wadi 2022 tzhc 15442 8 december 2022
Parties
Applicant: Amir R. Abdallah; Respondent: Mohamed A. Wadi
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
8 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Trial Court's Refusal to Amend Decree
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Correction of Decree, Accidental Slip or Omission, Jurisdiction of Court, Time Limitation, Execution of Decree
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Correction of Decree Accidental Slip or Omission Jurisdiction of Court Time Limitation Execution of Decree

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amir R. Abdallah

Applicant

Mohamed A. Wadi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Trial Court's Refusal to Amend Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in refusing to amend the extracted decree to include another plot number under section 96 of the CPC
  2. 2 Whether the omission in the decree constituted an accidental slip or omission correctable under section 96 of the CPC
  3. 3 Whether the application for correction was time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The omission of 'Plot No. 2015 Block H Mbezi Medium Density Dar es Salaam' in the decree was not an accidental slip or omission within the meaning of section 96 of the CPC, as the judgment did not specifically grant such relief. Therefore, the trial court was justified in refusing to amend the decree under section 96.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed