hubert krische vs the editor risasi newspaper others 2011 tzhc 2029 6 june 2011

hubert krische vs the editor risasi newspaper others 2011 tzhc 2029 6 june 2011

Order IX Rule 8 of CPC is mandatory; absence of plaintiff and his advocate at hearing requires dismissal of the suit. Appearance by advocate holding brief for adjournment does not satisfy the requirement for appearance at hearing.

Citation
hubert krische vs the editor risasi newspaper others 2011 tzhc 2029 6 june 2011
Parties
Plaintiff: Dr. Hubert Krische; 1st Defendant: The Editor, Risasi Newspaper; 2nd Defendant: Global Publishers & General Enterprises Ltd; 3rd Defendant: Business Printers Limited; 4th Defendant: Ncholenchole Wairaro
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
6 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Non Appearance at Hearing
Outcome
Suit dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Non Appearance, Adjournment, Mandatory Appearance of Plaintiff
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Non Appearance Adjournment Mandatory Appearance of Plaintiff

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

Dr. Hubert Krische

Plaintiff

The Editor, Risasi Newspaper

1st Defendant

Global Publishers & General Enterprises Ltd

2nd Defendant

Business Printers Limited

3rd Defendant

Ncholenchole Wairaro

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Non Appearance at Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff and his advocate at the hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Order IX Rule 8 of CPC is mandatory; absence of plaintiff and his advocate at hearing requires dismissal of the suit. Appearance by advocate holding brief for adjournment does not satisfy the requirement for appearance at hearing.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Civil Case Number 14 of 2005 is dismissed with costs