emmanual kayanda hosea and another vs sophia ernest rintenge and two others 2022 tzhc 14363 27 october 2022

emmanual kayanda hosea and another vs sophia ernest rintenge and two others 2022 tzhc 14363 27 october 2022

The court found that the application for correction of errors fell within the exceptions allowed by Order XLIII Rule 2, as the circumstances justified the use of a letter. The errors identified were clerical slips and could be corrected under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The right to be heard was accorded to the parties.

Citation
emmanual kayanda hosea and another vs sophia ernest rintenge and two others 2022 tzhc 14363 27 october 2022
Parties
Applicant: Emmanuel Kayanda Hosea; Applicant: Hope Jaffar Kawawa; Respondent: Sophia Ernest Rintenge; Respondent: Specioza Dominick Sentozi; Respondent: Dagras Hosea Kayanda
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Land Revision / Application for Correction of Errors in Ruling
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Correction of Clerical Errors, Procedural Compliance, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Correction of Clerical Errors Procedural Compliance Right to Be Heard

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Kayanda Hosea

Applicant

Hope Jaffar Kawawa

Applicant

Sophia Ernest Rintenge

Respondent

Specioza Dominick Sentozi

Respondent

Dagras Hosea Kayanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Revision / Application for Correction of Errors in Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for correction of errors was properly made by letter instead of chamber summons and affidavit
  2. 2 Whether the errors identified in the ruling are clerical or accidental slips warranting correction

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for correction of errors fell within the exceptions allowed by Order XLIII Rule 2, as the circumstances justified the use of a letter. The errors identified were clerical slips and could be corrected under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The right to be heard was accorded to the parties.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Rectification of errors in the ruling by replacing 'Counsel' with 'Chairman' and 'applicant' with 'first applicant' as specified.
  • A fresh ruling to be produced, signed, and supplied to the parties.