bashiru said mtumba vs anold peter kavishe another 2022 tzhclandd 12418 6 october 2022

bashiru said mtumba vs anold peter kavishe another 2022 tzhclandd 12418 6 october 2022

Leave to appeal is granted because the grounds raised by the applicant regarding the legal propriety of the first appellate court's reliance on an inadequately described and unstamped sale agreement, and on contradictory testimonies, merit the attention of the Court of Appeal as issues of law.

Citation
bashiru said mtumba vs anold peter kavishe another 2022 tzhclandd 12418 6 october 2022
Parties
Applicant: Bashiru Said Mtumba; 1st Respondent: Anold Peter Kavishe; 2nd Respondent: Abdi Omary
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
6 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Sale Agreement Validity, Stamp Duty, Contradictory Evidence
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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bashiru Said Mtumba

Applicant

Anold Peter Kavishe

1st Respondent

Abdi Omary

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal should be granted based on alleged errors in the first appellate court's reliance on a sale agreement and contradictory evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is granted because the grounds raised by the applicant regarding the legal propriety of the first appellate court's reliance on an inadequately described and unstamped sale agreement, and on contradictory testimonies, merit the attention of the Court of Appeal as issues of law.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal granted

Orders

  • Leave is granted for the applicant to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision in Land Appeal No. 11 of 2021.