david gilead tenga vs andrew ndaalio 2020 tzhclandd 2294 25 september 2020

david gilead tenga vs andrew ndaalio 2020 tzhclandd 2294 25 september 2020

The error in the typed judgment and decree, reading Block 'B' instead of Block '8', is a pure typographical error as evidenced by the original handwritten judgment and pleadings. Such an error can be corrected under section 96 of the CPC, and the application is not subject to limitation periods.

Citation
david gilead tenga vs andrew ndaalio 2020 tzhclandd 2294 25 september 2020
Parties
Applicant: David Gilead Tenga; Respondent: Andrew Ndaalio
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Judgment and Decree
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Judgment, Typographical Error, Slip Rule, Limitation Period
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Amendment of Judgment Typographical Error Slip Rule Limitation Period

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Gilead Tenga

Applicant

Andrew Ndaalio

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Judgment and Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to amend the judgment and decree is time barred
  2. 2 Whether the error in the judgment and decree is a typographical error that can be corrected under section 96 of the CPC

Ratio Decidendi

The error in the typed judgment and decree, reading Block 'B' instead of Block '8', is a pure typographical error as evidenced by the original handwritten judgment and pleadings. Such an error can be corrected under section 96 of the CPC, and the application is not subject to limitation periods.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • The typed judgment and decree in Land Case No. 250 of 2010 dated 22nd July 2010 to be corrected by substituting '8' wherever it reads 'B' in describing the Block Number of the disputed property.
  • No order as to costs.