deusdedith paschal chugga and others vs morfarm 2021 tzhclandd 214 17 may 2021

deusdedith paschal chugga and others vs morfarm 2021 tzhclandd 214 17 may 2021

The application was incompetent as the order of 19/08/2019 sought to be revised was not attached or shown to exist in the Tribunal's records. Further, by seeking and obtaining an extension of time to file submissions, the applicants waived their right to argue the preliminary objection, leaving nothing for the court to revise. The application was thus dismissed with costs.

Citation
deusdedith paschal chugga and others vs morfarm 2021 tzhclandd 214 17 may 2021
Parties
Applicant: Deusdedith Pascal Chugga; Applicant: Paul Manyika; Applicant: Hemed Rashid Ally; Applicant: Mfaume Athuman; Respondent: MORFARM
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Land Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Revision of Tribunal Orders, Locus Standi, Preliminary Objection, Abuse of Process
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Revision of Tribunal Orders Locus Standi Preliminary Objection Abuse of Process

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deusdedith Pascal Chugga

Applicant

Paul Manyika

Applicant

Hemed Rashid Ally

Applicant

Mfaume Athuman

Applicant

MORFARM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred by not determining the preliminary objection before proceeding to rule on the bill of costs
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had locus standi to sue or be sued in its own name
  3. 3 Whether the application for revision is competent in the absence of the order sought to be revised

Ratio Decidendi

The application was incompetent as the order of 19/08/2019 sought to be revised was not attached or shown to exist in the Tribunal's records. Further, by seeking and obtaining an extension of time to file submissions, the applicants waived their right to argue the preliminary objection, leaving nothing for the court to revise. The application was thus dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs