edina john mgeni alia jesca d john vs national bank of commerce 2020 tzhccomd 2029 27 february 2020

edina john mgeni alia jesca d john vs national bank of commerce 2020 tzhccomd 2029 27 february 2020

The applicant's complaints do not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record or a mistake that can be corrected by review; addressing them would require a long drawn process of argument, which is not the purpose of review but of appeal. The application is therefore devoid of merit.

Citation
edina john mgeni alia jesca d john vs national bank of commerce 2020 tzhccomd 2029 27 february 2020
Parties
Applicant: Edina John Mgeni alias Jesca D. John; 1st Respondent: National Bank of Commerce; 2nd Respondent: Mbeya Cement
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Review / Ruling on Review Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on the Face of Record, Counter Claim, Banking Transactions
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Review of Judgment Error Apparent on the Face of Record Counter Claim Banking Transactions

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 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edina John Mgeni alias Jesca D. John

Applicant

National Bank of Commerce

1st Respondent

Mbeya Cement

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review / Ruling on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of 23rd July, 2018 justifying review
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to distinguish between claims for overpayments and claims for cheque deposits

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's complaints do not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record or a mistake that can be corrected by review; addressing them would require a long drawn process of argument, which is not the purpose of review but of appeal. The application is therefore devoid of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • application for review dismissed
  • costs awarded to respondents