babito limited vs freight africa nv belgium others 2018 tzca 408 9 march 2018

babito limited vs freight africa nv belgium others 2018 tzca 408 9 march 2018

The appeal was incompetent for want of authentic copies of documents necessary to form part of the record of appeal in terms of Rule 96(1) of the Rules; retyping documents does not satisfy the requirement for copies.

Citation
babito limited vs freight africa nv belgium others 2018 tzca 408 9 march 2018
Parties
Appellant: Babito Ltd; 1st Respondent: Freight Africa NV - Belgium; 2nd Respondent: Tahit/So Murtzaza Vaui; 3rd Respondent: Total Freight Services (T) Ltd
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
9 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Record of Appeal, Preliminary Objection, Court Procedure, Appeal Competency
Source Language
English

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babito Ltd

Appellant

Freight Africa NV - Belgium

1st Respondent

Tahit/So Murtzaza Vaui

2nd Respondent

Total Freight Services (T) Ltd

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the record of appeal was validly constituted with authentic copies as required by Rule 96(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009
  2. 2 Whether retyped documents satisfy the requirement for 'copies' in the record of appeal
  3. 3 Whether misdescription of parties in the record is fatal to the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was incompetent for want of authentic copies of documents necessary to form part of the record of appeal in terms of Rule 96(1) of the Rules; retyping documents does not satisfy the requirement for copies.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out

Orders

  • Appeal struck out for incompetence due to non-compliance with Rule 96(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009
  • Costs to the respondents