bjunko investment limited vs esther philemon and 7 others 2023 tzhc 18222 27 january 2023

bjunko investment limited vs esther philemon and 7 others 2023 tzhc 18222 27 january 2023

Dismissal of Miscellaneous Land Application No. 327 of 2021 was unlawful as it occurred on a mention date, not hearing date, and appellant was represented by counsel whose affidavit of authorization was unchallenged; tribunal misdirected itself by requiring fresh proof and dismissing based on submissions from the bar.

Citation
bjunko investment limited vs esther philemon and 7 others 2023 tzhc 18222 27 january 2023
Parties
Appellant: Bjunko Investment Limited; Respondent: Esther Philemon; Respondent: Jared Nahum Mero; Respondent: Henry Raimos Mero; Respondent: John Benjamin Mero; Respondent: Edward Nahum Mero; Respondent: Elisa Mero; Respondent: Rabison Naiman Mero; Respondent: Lazaro Kimario
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Default Appearance, Representation by Advocate, Dismissal of Application, Restoration of Application
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Default Appearance Representation by Advocate Dismissal of Application Restoration of Application

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bjunko Investment Limited

Appellant

Esther Philemon

Respondent

Jared Nahum Mero

Respondent

Henry Raimos Mero

Respondent

John Benjamin Mero

Respondent

Edward Nahum Mero

Respondent

Elisa Mero

Respondent

Rabison Naiman Mero

Respondent

Lazaro Kimario

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dismissal for default appearance was proper when appellant was represented by counsel
  2. 2 Whether requirement for proof of advocate's instruction was legally justified
  3. 3 Whether dismissal on a mention date was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

Dismissal of Miscellaneous Land Application No. 327 of 2021 was unlawful as it occurred on a mention date, not hearing date, and appellant was represented by counsel whose affidavit of authorization was unchallenged; tribunal misdirected itself by requiring fresh proof and dismissing based on submissions from the bar.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Dismissal order in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 327 of 2021 quashed and set aside
  • Case file remitted to trial tribunal for hearing and determination on merit before another chairman