amiri salehe mwamba vs barclays bank ltd and 4 others 2021 tzhclandd 6728 30 july 2021

amiri salehe mwamba vs barclays bank ltd and 4 others 2021 tzhclandd 6728 30 july 2021

The dismissal order was issued in forgetfulness of the fact that the applicant, as the third defendant to the counter claim, had no duty to serve the fourth and fifth defendants; thus, the order was improper and extension of time is granted to set aside the dismissal order.

Citation
amiri salehe mwamba vs barclays bank ltd and 4 others 2021 tzhclandd 6728 30 july 2021
Parties
Applicant: Amiri Saleh Mwamba; 1st Respondent: Barclays Bank Limited; 2nd Respondent: Yono Auction Mart Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Patrick Moses Nyamohanga; 4th Respondent: Commissioner for Lands; 5th Respondent: Hon. Attorney General
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Setting Aside Dismissal Order
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Dismissal of Suit, Service of Process, Counter Claim, Restoration of Suit
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Dismissal of Suit Service of Process Counter Claim Restoration of Suit

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amiri Saleh Mwamba

Applicant

Barclays Bank Limited

1st Respondent

Yono Auction Mart Ltd

2nd Respondent

Patrick Moses Nyamohanga

3rd Respondent

Commissioner for Lands

4th Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Setting Aside Dismissal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to set aside the dismissal order
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal order was tainted with illegality due to misapplication of service requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal order was issued in forgetfulness of the fact that the applicant, as the third defendant to the counter claim, had no duty to serve the fourth and fifth defendants; thus, the order was improper and extension of time is granted to set aside the dismissal order.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Extension of time granted for the applicant to file an application to set aside the dismissal order.
  • Dismissal order set aside.