20060220 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the law does not provide for an appeal from an order rejecting objection proceedings under the cited provisions.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20060220 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: China Estate Farms Agribusiness (Group) Corporation (T) Limited; Respondent: William Godson
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 20 February 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal struck out
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appealability, Objection Proceedings, Execution of Decree
- 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
China Estate Farms Agribusiness (Group) Corporation (T) Limited
Appellant
William Godson
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order rejecting objection proceedings under Order XXI rule 57 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the law does not provide for an appeal from an order rejecting objection proceedings under the cited provisions.
Court Disposition
appeal struck out
Orders
- The appeal is struck out with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2003 CHINA ESTATE FARMS AGRIBUSINES} , , , , APPELLANT (GROUP) CORPORATION (T) LIMITED VERSUS WILLIAM GODSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... RESPONDENT Date of final submission 28/12/2005 Date of Judgment 20/2/2006 JUDGMENT ORIYO, J.: In Civil Case No. 20 of 1994 in the Court of the Resident Magistrate at Morogoro, judgment and decree were granted in favour of the respondent. The respondent had filed a suit against H.W. Nizche, Kassim Makusudi, Athumani Mgetto and Farmlands Tanzania Ltd. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were senior officers of the 4th defendant company. The judgment debtors did not prefer an appeal against the trial court's decision of 27/3/96. But when the execution of the decree was carried out against a motor vehicle belonging to the 4th defendant; the appellant, M/S. China Estate Farms Agribusiness (Group) Corporation (T) Ltd; filed objection proceedings at the trial court on 2/7/2002; pursuant to Order. XX1 rule 57 of the 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1966. The reasons advanced for the objection was that the attached motor vehicle was the property of the appellant following an agreement of 31/3/2000 to sell the shares of the 4th defendant to the appellant. The objection was overruled hence this appeal against the order. Before I consider the grounds of appeal fronted by the appellant, let me first satisfy myself as to the jurisdiction of this court over the matter. The issue of jurisdiction is being raised suo mottu by the court. It is trite law that an appeal is a creature of statute. Where there is no statute providing for a right of appeal then there is no right to appeal. SECTION 74 read together with ORDER XL (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, provide for Orders from which appeals lie. The present appeal is not provided for. However, a rejection in Objection proceedings is not appealable but aggrieved party can obtain redress otherwise than by way of appeal. For the above reasons the appeal is incompetently before this court. Accordingly this court has no jurisdiction over the matter and the same is struck out with costs. (K.K. ORIYO) JUDGE 20/2/2006 2 '• 20/2/2006 Coram: Oriya, J. For the Appellant: Ngasala Advocate For the Respondent: In person C.C.: Emmy \ Court: Judgment delivered in the presence of parties. (K.K. ORIYO) JUDGE 20/2/2006 419 Words 3