20050825 TZCA Dar es Salaam

20050825 TZCA Dar es Salaam

The appeal was incompetent as it was instituted after the amendment to section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, which prohibits appeals against preliminary or interlocutory decisions. Consequently, both the appeal and the notice of appeal were struck out. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single judge and in the absence of a notice of appeal, lacked jurisdiction to grant an injunction or restrain the respondents from disposing of KAUDO property.

Citation
20050825 TZCA Dar es Salaam
Parties
Applicant: Esmail Choka; Respondent 1: National Transport Corporation (NTC); Respondent 2: The Liquidator, Kampuni ya Usafirishaji Ltd. Dodoma (KAUDO)
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Stay Execution and to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
Application partly allowed and partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Striking Out Appeal, Jurisdiction, Notice of Appeal
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Stay of Execution Striking Out Appeal Jurisdiction Notice of Appeal

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esmail Choka

Applicant

National Transport Corporation (NTC)

Respondent 1

The Liquidator, Kampuni ya Usafirishaji Ltd. Dodoma (KAUDO)

Respondent 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Stay Execution and to Strike Out Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal against a preliminary objection is competent under amended section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979
  2. 2 Whether the notice of appeal should also be struck out after the appeal is struck out
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant an injunction after striking out the notice of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was incompetent as it was instituted after the amendment to section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, which prohibits appeals against preliminary or interlocutory decisions. Consequently, both the appeal and the notice of appeal were struck out. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single judge and in the absence of a notice of appeal, lacked jurisdiction to grant an injunction or restrain the respondents from disposing of KAUDO property.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed and partly dismissed

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2003 is struck out as incompetent.
  • Notice of appeal is struck out.