CIVIL APPLICATION NO 434 01 OF 2019 FATMA AMANI KARUME VS THE ATTOENEY GENERAL ANOTHER

CIVIL APPLICATION NO 434 01 OF 2019 FATMA AMANI KARUME VS THE ATTOENEY GENERAL ANOTHER

The application for revision is incompetent because the applicant, having been suspended under section 22(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, had an alternative remedy to seek disallowance of the suspension from the High Court, and the impugned decision was interlocutory and not amenable for revision under section 5(2)(d)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CIVIL APPLICATION NO 434 01 OF 2019 FATMA AMANI KARUME VS THE ATTOENEY GENERAL ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Fatma Amani Karume; 1st Respondent: The Attorney General; 2nd Respondent: The Jaji Kiongozi, High Court of Tanzania
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Application struck out as incompetent with costs.
Legal Topics
Revision, Suspension of Advocate, Disciplinary Proceedings, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Revision Suspension of Advocate Disciplinary Proceedings Preliminary Objection

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fatma Amani Karume

Applicant

The Attorney General

1st Respondent

The Jaji Kiongozi, High Court of Tanzania

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for revision is competent given the procedural posture and statutory scheme
  2. 2 Whether the impugned decision is amenable for revision under section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had an alternative remedy under section 22(2)(b) of the Advocates Act

Ratio Decidendi

The application for revision is incompetent because the applicant, having been suspended under section 22(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, had an alternative remedy to seek disallowance of the suspension from the High Court, and the impugned decision was interlocutory and not amenable for revision under section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.

Court Disposition

Application struck out as incompetent with costs.

Orders

  • Application struck out with costs.