19990218 TZHC Dar es Salaam 2
The applicant did not present any new or important matter or evidence; the primary court had jurisdiction as the area in question was unsurveyed land.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19990218 TZHC Dar es Salaam 2
- Parties
- Applicant: Chikuku Koroto; Respondent: A.R. Sululu
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 18 February 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Cause / Application for Review of Ruling
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Decision, Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution
- 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
Chikuku Koroto
Applicant
A.R. Sululu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Cause / Application for Review of Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has presented new and important matter or evidence for review
- 2 Whether the trial primary court had jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant did not present any new or important matter or evidence; the primary court had jurisdiction as the area in question was unsurveyed land.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application for review dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THB HIGH. GOUR'r OF TAi~Z.ANIJ.\. (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGIS'rRY) J.\.'r DAR ES SALAAM MISCEJ:.~lf..O..QS CIVIL CAUSE N0.83 OF 1998 CHIKUKU KOROTO ')00000001,10000000,:,oooooooooooot>oo APPLICANT Versus A.R. SULULU ~000000000?000000000000000000000006 RESPONDENT . R UL I NG CHIP ETA, Jo : This is an application for review•of the Ruling of this court delivered on 30th June,, 1998 in an application by the applicant for. leave to appeal to this court out of time and for stay of execution • • That application was dismissed on the ground that the applicant was guilty of gross negligence and inaction in dealing with the matter. In the present application, the applicant has raised the same matters which he canvassed in the earlier application. He has added that the trial primary court had no jurisdiction • .("'\~ A decision of a tribunal can only be reviewed by such tribunal ~ r ' ~- thG t';roun.d c9f discovery . o:( n0i,.,r _:,nd. importan.t matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could _not be produced by him_ at the time the decision was made. In the present case, the applicant has revealed no new important, matter or evidence at all. He only repeated what he said ,in the earli.er c~pplication. As for the .juridiction of the trial primary court, the applic;:mt himself conceded that the area in question is unsurvey~d laJldo The primary court_, therefore, had jurisdiction in the matter • .\ ) fi \__ 2 For these reasons, this application for review has no merit whatsoever. It is accordingly dismissed with costso Bo D. CHIPETA J"UDGE Ruling delivered in Chambers in presence of the parties this 18th day of February, 19990 B. Do CHIPETA JUDGE 18/2/1999 Ap:elicant ~ My ·-1ord, give notice of appeal. Court; The applicant will first have to seek leave of this Court to appeal to the Court of Appeal within required time. B. D. CHIPETA JUDGE 18/2/1999 \ )