bharya engineering constructing coltd vs willy bekker 2021 tzhcld 40 9 march 2021
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to appear or prosecute the case for 14 months, indicating loss of interest and disrespect for court orders.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- bharya engineering constructing coltd vs willy bekker 2021 tzhcld 40 9 march 2021
- Parties
- Applicant: Bharya Engineering & Contracting Co. Ltd; Respondent: Willy Bekker
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 9 March 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Revision / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Application dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Non Appearance of Applicant, Compliance With Court Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bharya Engineering & Contracting Co. Ltd
Applicant
Willy Bekker
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to applicant's non-appearance
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to appear or prosecute the case for 14 months, indicating loss of interest and disrespect for court orders.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- Revision application number 973/2019 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM REVISION NO. 973 OF 2019 BETWEEN BHARYA ENGINEERING & CONSTRACTING CO. LTD.............. APPLICANT VERSUS WILLY BEKKER RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last Order: 08/03/2021 Date of Ruling: 08/03/2021 Z.G.Muruke, J. Applicant filed present applications) on 31st December, 2019. Since filing applicant has not appeared even once, despite several court orders. That is not healthily. Goufftoraers has to be complied with once issued. None compliance of ’tbe^anne not only is a sign of disrespect, but create chaos on ehtir^a^ijm^^tion of justice. By not appearing for 14 months, applicant has^urneljthis court into library of litigants case file. This cannot beCdeft to icbnti.nue. From the records applicant has lost interest to prosecOite hercase filed 14 months ago. Thus revision application number 973/2019 is dismissed for want of prosecution, as correctly submitted by Precious Ahmad Hassan, Counsel for th,^respondent. Z.G.MtTruke JUDGE 08/03/2021 i Ruling delivered in the absence of applicant and in the presence of Precious Ahmad Hassan, Advocate for respondent. Z.G.Muruke 2