chela james ghanai and 1 another vs deogratius ndanu 2020 tzhc 4525 17 december 2020

chela james ghanai and 1 another vs deogratius ndanu 2020 tzhc 4525 17 december 2020

The preliminary objections were dismissed as the wrong citation of the law did not prejudice the respondent and did not render the application incompetent. The court found an error apparent on the face of the record in the previous judgment, as the appeal should have been allowed rather than dismissed, given the findings on malicious prosecution. The court exercised its power of review to correct this error.

Citation
chela james ghanai and 1 another vs deogratius ndanu 2020 tzhc 4525 17 december 2020
Parties
First Applicant: Chela James Ghanai; Second Applicant: PACT Tanzania; Respondent: Deogratius Ndanu
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Review / Ruling on Review Application and Preliminary Objections
Outcome
application for review allowed
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Malicious Prosecution, Preliminary Objections, Wrong Citation of Law
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Judgment Malicious Prosecution Preliminary Objections Wrong Citation of Law

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chela James Ghanai

First Applicant

PACT Tanzania

Second Applicant

Deogratius Ndanu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review / Ruling on Review Application and Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether preliminary objections regarding citation of non-existing law render the application incompetent
  2. 2 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The preliminary objections were dismissed as the wrong citation of the law did not prejudice the respondent and did not render the application incompetent. The court found an error apparent on the face of the record in the previous judgment, as the appeal should have been allowed rather than dismissed, given the findings on malicious prosecution. The court exercised its power of review to correct this error.

Court Disposition

application for review allowed

Orders

  • Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2019 allowed with costs.
  • Each party to bear its own costs for the review application.