edness aminiel minja vs peter antony majuva ta nafaka commision agent limited 2023 tzhclandd 16723 31 july 2023

edness aminiel minja vs peter antony majuva ta nafaka commision agent limited 2023 tzhclandd 16723 31 july 2023

The plaint did not expressly or impliedly state the value of the subject matter as required by Order VII Rule 1(i) of the Civil Procedure Code. The amount mentioned in the plaint referred to the outstanding debt, not the value of the landed property which is the actual subject matter. Failure to state the value of the subject matter is a mandatory defect that renders the suit incompetent.

Citation
edness aminiel minja vs peter antony majuva ta nafaka commision agent limited 2023 tzhclandd 16723 31 july 2023
Parties
Plaintiff: Edness Aminiel Minja; 1st Defendant: Peter Antony Majuba t/a Nafaka Commission Agent Limited; 2nd Defendant: National Microfinance Bank PLC; 3rd Defendant: Adili Auction Mart
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Suit struck out for incompetence due to non-compliance with mandatory pleading requirements.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Jurisdiction, Court Fees, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Pleadings Jurisdiction Court Fees Injunctive Relief

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edness Aminiel Minja

Plaintiff

Peter Antony Majuba t/a Nafaka Commission Agent Limited

1st Defendant

National Microfinance Bank PLC

2nd Defendant

Adili Auction Mart

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaint complies with Order VII Rule 1(i) of the Civil Procedure Code by stating the value of the subject matter for jurisdiction and court fees purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaint did not expressly or impliedly state the value of the subject matter as required by Order VII Rule 1(i) of the Civil Procedure Code. The amount mentioned in the plaint referred to the outstanding debt, not the value of the landed property which is the actual subject matter. Failure to state the value of the subject matter is a mandatory defect that renders the suit incompetent.

Court Disposition

Suit struck out for incompetence due to non-compliance with mandatory pleading requirements.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Plaint struck out for failure to state value of subject matter as required by law.