20090312 TZHC Arusha
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to file the decision sought to be quashed and did not submit written arguments as directed by the court, making it impossible for the court to determine the matter.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20090312 TZHC Arusha
- Parties
- Applicant: Fadhili Rajabu; Respondent: Presidential Parastatal Sector Reform Commission
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 12 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Misc. Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Quash Taxing Officer's Decision
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Taxation of Costs, Dismissal for Non Prosecution
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Fadhili Rajabu
Applicant
Presidential Parastatal Sector Reform Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Misc. Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Quash Taxing Officer's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to quash the taxing officer's decision can be determined without the decision being filed and without written submissions
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to file the decision sought to be quashed and did not submit written arguments as directed by the court, making it impossible for the court to determine the matter.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ATARUSHA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2002 (C/F High Court of Tanzania at Arusha Tax cau~e No. 42 of 2000) FADHILI RAJABU .............................................].........APPLICANT VERSUS PRESIDENTIAL PARASTATAL } SECTOR REFORM COMMISSION .................i.... RESPONDENT. RULING R. SHEIKH, J I In this application the applicant FADHILI RAJABU is seeking the following order:- I That the decision of the Taxing officer made on the 24th day of i October 2002 be quashed and set aside and: the Bill of Costs. Application No. 42 of 2000, be heard de nova on as the Honourable I Court may deem just. The application is brought under the I provisions of Rule 5 (1) and (2) of the Advocates: Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules 1991 and was draw ana filed by Makange I Chambers, advocates however the application is not accompanied by I a copy of the decision sought to be quashed, an~ as of the date of 1 I the hearing on 7/12/2004 the said decision had pot been filed in court despite several extensions having been granted for filing a copy I of the decision in court and serv,ice thereof to ~r. Maro, learned Counsel for the respondent. On 7/12/2004 by consent of both learned counsel it was ordered that the application be disposed of by wri~en submission to be filed as follows:- (a) Applicant's submissions to be filed by 31/oi12005, I ; (b) Respondent's submissions to be filed by 28/02/2005, I I (c) Rejoinder if any to be filed by 14/03/2005,: I I (d) Ruling on Notice. ' For reasons best known by the learned counsel; in this matter, no I written submissions have been filed to date. Jn the absence of the submissions and indeed the decision sought to be quashed I this court is unable to determine the applicatiorn I The application is accordingly hereby dismissed with Costs. (Sgd) R. SHEIKH, JUDGE 11/12/2008. 2 . Dte:- 12/3/2009 Coram: - F.S.K. Mutungi, DR Applicant:- For the Applicant: - Mr. Makange Respondent:- For the, Respondent: - Mr. Boniface. B/C Priscila. Court:- Ruling ready this 12/3/2009 by Mr. Makange Advocate I for the Applicant also the presence of Mr. Boniface for the Respondent. ISTRAR I 9. RS/mk I I hereby certify this to be a true copy of origina,I. 3