Land Case No
The withdrawal was sought promptly and without evidence of undue hardship or substantial expenses incurred by the defendants; therefore, the suit is withdrawn without an order as to costs.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- Land Case No
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Masaka Hiza; Plaintiff: Veronica Clara Hiza; Defendant: NCBA Bank (Tanzania) Limited; Defendant: Nutmeg Auctioneer & Property Manager Ltd
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Withdrawal at Mention Stage
- Outcome
- Suit withdrawn without order as to costs
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Suit, Costs on Withdrawal
- 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
David Masaka Hiza
Plaintiff
Veronica Clara Hiza
Plaintiff
NCBA Bank (Tanzania) Limited
Defendant
Nutmeg Auctioneer & Property Manager Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Withdrawal at Mention Stage
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to withdraw the suit without an order for costs
- 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to costs upon withdrawal of the suit
Ratio Decidendi
The withdrawal was sought promptly and without evidence of undue hardship or substantial expenses incurred by the defendants; therefore, the suit is withdrawn without an order as to costs.
Court Disposition
Suit withdrawn without order as to costs
Orders
- Suit marked as withdrawn
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LAND DIVISION DAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE NO 25163 OF 2024 DAVID MASAKA HIZA....... .................................... 1st PLAINTIFF VERONICA CLARA HIZA....................................... 2nd PLAINTIFF VERSUS NCBA BANK (TANZANIA) LIMITED.................. 1st DEFENDANT NUTMEG AUCTIONEER & PROPERTY MANAGER LTD............................... 2nd DEFENDANT ORDER This matter was scheduled for mention today. However, Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Ms. Demetria Daniel, has prayed to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 and Rule 2(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Code, R.E. 2019. Ms. Daniel submitted that the Plaintiffs no longer wish to pursue the matter and seek to withdraw it at this early Page 1 of 3 stage without an order for costs, on the basis that the Defendants have not incurred substantial expenses. In response, Mr. Kelvin Kidifu, learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant, indicated no objection to the withdrawal but prayed for costs. He emphasized that the 1st Defendant had engaged counsel to appear on her behalf, which entitles her to reimbursement for the costs incurred. The Plaintiff's right to withdraw a suit at any stage of the proceedings is well-established. As noted in Mulla's Commentary on Civil Procedure, a party should not be compelled to litigate against their will. The question of costs, however, lies within the discretion of the Court and requires a careful balancing of factors, including whether the suit was instituted with malicious intent, the stage at which the withdrawal is requested, and whether the withdrawal has caused undue hardship or financial burden to the Defendant. Although the learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant has rightly noted the costs involved in retaining legal representation, this alone does not automatically entitle a party to costs upon withdrawal by the Plaintiff. In this instance, I find that the withdrawal was sought promptly. Consequently, the threshold for granting costs to the Defendants has not Page 2 of 3 been met. Accordingly, the suit is hereby marked as withdrawn without an order as to costs. It is so ordered. .pi E.I. LALTAIKA U® JUDGE 18/10/2024 Page 3 of 3