19900928 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19900928 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 28 September 1990
- Posture
- Application / Final Determination
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 28 September 1990
- Posture
- Application / Final Determination
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The affidavit of Mr. Mbuya established that the applicant was present and consented to the withdrawal; the applicant's affidavit claiming otherwise was found to be false. There was no valid reason to doubt Mr. Mbuya's affidavit, and no grounds for exercising inherent powers to grant remedy.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application dismissed
- Applicant to pay costs
02
Material facts
Parties
Applicant
Applicant Counsel: Mr. UnyambuRespondent
Respondent Counsel: Mr. MutambuziAmounts and remedies
- Costs: 0
03
Procedural history
Posture
Application / Final Determination
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant consented to the withdrawal of the appeal
- 02
Whether the court should exercise its inherent powers to grant remedy to the applicant
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant claimed he did not know the reasons for the withdrawal and was not present in court when the appeal was withdrawn.
- Respondent
- Respondent tendered affidavit of Mr. Mbuya, counsel for applicant at the time, stating withdrawal was with applicant's consent and knowledge, and applicant was present in court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's reasoning
Affidavit evidence is determinative unless valid reason to doubt its veracity exists.
- 02
Court's reasoning
Withdrawal of appeal requires consent and knowledge of the client.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The affidavit of Mr. Mbuya established that the applicant was present and consented to the withdrawal; the applicant's affidavit claiming otherwise was found to be false. There was no valid reason to doubt Mr. Mbuya's affidavit, and no grounds for exercising inherent powers to grant remedy.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs
- Application dismissed
- Applicant to pay costs
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 28 September 1990
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 28 September 1990
IlT 'I'I-3 :-:IG:-: CC®'l' CF Ti~lJLl11Jii:. G OF 19DG • • ... . vcrcus " .. . which wn::; ,·ri th.dram"! .. It ic ct1::_)::_::,ortoci 'by nn nff'iclo.vi t. a:fficlavi t the ap:)lica:1:t i~c::; G tc tecl tile. t ho did not know tb.o rcaoono for tho 1-ri th,_"'..rm·rcl nc :'le ua.s not in court on tho clay l'Ir. Un:,1bnli for tho ap:)licant uc.c. a.sldnc; tl10 court to 1...100 i to i:11.:cr:ont power:;; to provide rc1:10c.y to tho cp~licnnt. : .In rC~)ly to t~c.2. t gioc 1-'iuto.buzi tcnc:.crcd t:1.0 · p;ffidnvi t of i'1;i~. :... . r--'.ibuyn ·who. was counncl for tl;.o 2.p:,licnnt ut. tho ti~10 of . . . . ,.. ,. ~ ' ,· : '. • i;i1c .-,,/ithclrn~:rpl. E.ion · il.u.-.,;ttbuzi;,lt, :iloo.rnGd c ouna cl,· uc'.hi-£.: -o;-i- ·,:t.o. : 1 ' o~tnt;_. tho~, tiio; ·,:i'f'f'ic:avi t. cl".2.;i."J.y G::101-10.<1 ti1.a. t tho dppli·c~nt'., WU?- . ..,.. . ···-·. . .; rooso'no .·of tl:..c withdrawal. 1/,ioo Mutnbuzi conc1q9-od that th.ore t-,ns no c.:.ucotion of inhoro:nt powcro bcinG c.x:or.oiP,o.d. Ih c furt:-:c:;:-- reply, Mr. 1h:u:ibc1i, 1onrnoc1 cou1:Gcl Gcid thnt ho hnd no roc:G o~:1 to (,.ou~Jt; t:'lo contents. o:f' tho o.f:fic:o.vi t of' Nr, Mbuy2.. I Thia U:i_)plico. -tion l2no ~10 ,:10:...~i ts o.nC: ems t bG clim:1ionocl 1-ri th t costs... l t is elem.... f,_"'ot:1 tho n~:ficlo.vi t of f-'.!r• Mbuyu lom:'11.cc: withdrawn ·with tho conGcnt 21:c: knm·1loc1.Gc o:f the up:;_:,liccnt
who wna. present in cour-'c .ct t~'.'..C ti,:;o of' tho wi thclruwo.1:-. no reason to doubt ·fr. c n:ffic:nvit of l·'.ir •. Mbuyo. nbout this, nor would there ':Jo cny valicl :ro2.oon for Hr •. Mlmyn to withc:r.nw the 6p?on1 without tho ocnction or conacnt of hiG client~ I hold thn t tho o.:f:ficlovi t of' t~'-o ci.:_)],~licnnt that ho ucs not present when the n.ppccl wcs wit:1.C::.:..... cun n:ac: -'c:1n-t ho did not ncroo to tho n:_)pcnl be inc; ,-Ti thdr.nwn i::; cortcL'lly fo.lo o ~ 2 , • • .. • ,...... J.. Tho applicntio:a. <.LlGl:11000(~ i"T1"t,H COS 1..,8 • .• - - _ .,.._....,...... ..... - . ( "--- ~------£- ~- --, ... .. . . ···:·~,.,,..:'~~-·· _"",_:::;.-:- -~- ,A·. :Ci:.Hl1TI ·,,\ _,!JD2QE 20/9/1990 Do.li vcrcd. ....~. .,,... :,:.::=~~':/_":·. \;__:.. \ b. DLE.f:..TI \ \ ' -~-L'Q.1?.filL 20/9/1990
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.