bobote kilasa vs vumilia cosmas 2009 tzhc 92 28 april 2009
The appeal was dismissed because both parties continuously absented themselves from court, failing to prosecute the appeal as required by law.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- bobote kilasa vs vumilia cosmas 2009 tzhc 92 28 april 2009
- Parties
- Appellant: Bobote Kilasa; Respondent: Vumilia Cosmas
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 28 April 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Appeal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Party Absenteeism
- 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
Bobote Kilasa
Appellant
Vumilia Cosmas
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to continuous absenteeism of both parties
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because both parties continuously absented themselves from court, failing to prosecute the appeal as required by law.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- Each party to bear their own costs.
- Decisions of the trial and first appellate courts remain undisturbed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY AT MWANZA PC. MISC. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2007 (Originating from Civii Appeal No. 92 o f2006 ofMagu, Originating in Civii Case No. 22 o f2006 from Kongoro Primary Court) BOBOTE KILASA........................................ APPELLANT Versus VUMILIA COSMAS.................................... RESPONDENT RULING G. K. RWAKIBARILA. 3 This appeal was instituted on 25.07.2007 by appellant Bobote Kilasa. But from that day, respondent Vumilia Cosmas and this appellant have continuously absented themselves in court on all occasions when the same appeal was set for mention. The law is that in civil proceedings akin to this one, parties are supposed to prosecute their respective cases. But in July this year, parties shall be celebrating the second year since July 2007, when they commenced iri^volvement in the mischief of absenteeism. As a result, this appeal is at this juncture, dismissed for want of its prosecution. For record purposes appellant and respondent shall shoulder their own costs in this appeal. But the decision of the trial Kongole primary court in civil case No. 22 of 2006 and the decision in the first appellate court civil appeal No. 92 of 2006 are not disturbed. G. K. Rwakibarila JUDGE 28.04.2009 Court: Right of appeal not explained to parties this 28th day of April, 2009 but their respective rights for appeal to be communicated to them when they shall show up in court. G. K. Rwakibarila JUDGE At Mwanza 28.04.2009 2