boni hamdani shaibu vs fatuma mohamed sharif and others 2020 tzhclandd 21 9 march 2020

boni hamdani shaibu vs fatuma mohamed sharif and others 2020 tzhclandd 21 9 march 2020

The appellant was a party to Civil Case No. 95 of 2001 as the 3rd defendant by virtue of an amendment, satisfying the requirements of res judicata under section 9 of the CPC. The omission of his name in the judgment was a clerical error that does not affect the application of res judicata. Therefore, the Tribunal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
boni hamdani shaibu vs fatuma mohamed sharif and others 2020 tzhclandd 21 9 march 2020
Parties
Appellant: Boni Hamdani Shaibu; 1st Respondent: Fatuma Mohamed Sharrif; 2nd Respondent: Abdallah Ally Ulinda; 3rd Respondent: Straight Line Auction Mart Ltd
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
9 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Party to Suit, Preliminary Objection, Finality of Litigation
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land Law Res Judicata Party to Suit Preliminary Objection Finality of Litigation

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boni Hamdani Shaibu

Appellant

Fatuma Mohamed Sharrif

1st Respondent

Abdallah Ally Ulinda

2nd Respondent

Straight Line Auction Mart Ltd

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was a party to Civil Case No. 95 of 2001 and thus barred by res judicata
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the application as res judicata

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was a party to Civil Case No. 95 of 2001 as the 3rd defendant by virtue of an amendment, satisfying the requirements of res judicata under section 9 of the CPC. The omission of his name in the judgment was a clerical error that does not affect the application of res judicata. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly dismissed the application as res judicata.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The decision of the Tribunal is upheld
  • The appeal is dismissed with costs