20090428 TZHC Mwanza
The appeal was dismissed because both parties continuously absented themselves from court, failing to prosecute the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20090428 TZHC Mwanza
- 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, Absenteeism, Costs
- 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.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
t• ;..· .. . .,; (I •._ ,-, ~ \,... ;- :~- . ~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC Of TANZANIA. '·f. IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY . AiMWANZA PC. MISC. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2007 {Originating from Civil Appeal No. 92,of 2006 of Magu, Originating in Civil Case No. 22 of 2006 from Kongoro · Primary Court} · BOBOTE KILASA .. I . I I I I I I I.-. I I •• I I I I I •• I I I ••• I . I •• I I . I . APPELLANT Versus VUMILIA COSMAS .................................... RESPONDENT RULING G. K. RWAKIBARILA. J · . 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 th~mselves 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 Juiy -· • i 200i, when they commenced i,:,volvemerit in the mischief of ....., ! absenteeism. As a result, this appeal is at this juncture, dismissed for want of its prosecution. I , . ·( ., .• ,.r.f.-_.__.w, . I ·for record purpos~s appellant and. respondent shall shoulder their owri costs in _this appeal. But the decision of the tria·1 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 co111municated to them when they shall show up in court. G. K. Rwakibarila .. ·JUDGE At Mwanza 28.04.2009 2