anthony ngoo another vs kitinda kimaro 2013 tzca 233 12 december 2013

anthony ngoo another vs kitinda kimaro 2013 tzca 233 12 december 2013

The applicants failed to show they would suffer substantial loss and did not furnish or guarantee security for due performance of the decree as required by Rule 11(2)(d); thus, the application for stay of execution was dismissed.

Citation
anthony ngoo another vs kitinda kimaro 2013 tzca 233 12 december 2013
Parties
Applicant: Anthony Ngoo; Applicant: Davis Anthony Ngoo; Respondent: Kitinda Kimaro
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
12 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Security for Performance, Substantial Loss Requirement
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure Security for Performance Substantial Loss Requirement

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Ngoo

Applicant

Davis Anthony Ngoo

Applicant

Kitinda Kimaro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants satisfied all conditions for stay of execution under Rule 11(2)(b), (c), and (d) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to show they would suffer substantial loss and did not furnish or guarantee security for due performance of the decree as required by Rule 11(2)(d); thus, the application for stay of execution was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed
  • Applicants to pay costs