CIVIL APPEAL NO

CIVIL APPEAL NO

The trial judge's failure to rule on adjournment applications and to allow the respondents, particularly the 2nd respondent, to be heard on their defence and counterclaim constituted a violation of the right to be heard, rendering the proceedings and judgment after 4th December 2020 a nullity.

Citation
CIVIL APPEAL NO
Parties
Appellant: Anna Alphonce Kasembe; 1st Respondent: Dora Kawawa Fusi (As the Administratrix of the Estates of the Late Secilius Edward Fussi); 2nd Respondent: Modest David Chonapi Mapunda; 3rd Respondent: Elly Gift S. Fusi; 4th Respondent: Brick House Company Ltd; 5th Respondent: Jones Secilius Edward Fusi
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment After Ex Parte Dismissal of Plaintiff's Case
Outcome
proceedings and judgment after 4th December 2020 nullified; appeal allowed to that extent
Legal Topics
Right to Be Heard, Adjournment, Counterclaim, Natural Justice, Nullification of Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Constitutional Law Right to Be Heard Adjournment Counterclaim Natural Justice Nullification of Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna Alphonce Kasembe

Appellant

Dora Kawawa Fusi (As the Administratrix of the Estates of the Late Secilius Edward Fussi)

1st Respondent

Modest David Chonapi Mapunda

2nd Respondent

Elly Gift S. Fusi

3rd Respondent

Brick House Company Ltd

4th Respondent

Jones Secilius Edward Fusi

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment After Ex Parte Dismissal of Plaintiff's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred by denying the respondents the right to be heard after closing the defence case without ruling on adjournment applications
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to determine the 2nd respondent's counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings and judgment after 4th December 2020 are null due to violation of the right to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's failure to rule on adjournment applications and to allow the respondents, particularly the 2nd respondent, to be heard on their defence and counterclaim constituted a violation of the right to be heard, rendering the proceedings and judgment after 4th December 2020 a nullity.

Court Disposition

proceedings and judgment after 4th December 2020 nullified; appeal allowed to that extent

Orders

  • Proceedings from 4th December 2020 after the close of the appellant's case are nullified.
  • Judgment and decree of the High Court set aside.