19970820 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
The application for review was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record; the proper remedy for the alleged errors is appeal, not review.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19970820 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
- Parties
- Applicant: Fazal Ghacha; Respondent: Syruji Trucking Company Limited
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 20 August 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Review Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Locus Standi, Security of Employment Act
- 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
Fazal Ghacha
Applicant
Syruji Trucking Company Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to review of the court's order striking out the suit for lack of locus standi
- 2 Whether the court erred in raising locus standi suo motu
- 3 Whether the applicant is covered by section 40A of the Security of Employment Act
Ratio Decidendi
The application for review was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record; the proper remedy for the alleged errors is appeal, not review.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Application for review dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
rn THE HCllH COlJi"'T OF TANZi!NLl ( DI',.,!? ES s·::.r,J,;Jvr D!STJICT RIDLS'.mY ) i\T r,m ,:-:S GfLt.AM --...-----~ ------·----·· CIVIL CA.SB ~VL 46 OF 1993 F ,JJL GHACHA PLi,WTIFF Versus s YRUJI Ti.1lCKlliG ~fJ,r.l 'LIMITEV Kj~JI J: _..__...,..,__., . The op.plico.nt F1'.TJL CH/,CH:l i.s applying for '.:\ review of the order of this court dated 16th June, 1995Q In thr:tt order this court struck out the .::i.pplicont' ,s suit .:ig~inst the· respondent §.6!1.IDI 'IT~U:,~Q_CqiR.{_J{Y LTD on the ground th.'.'.t the npplico.nt h!1.d no Locus §tandi. • 1 She o.pplicont s moin _grounds ·for .::i. reviet-, Qre :i.s follow:- 1. Thot the Honour2.ble Judge ( Hon. J\bcko.nj:i. J .) erred' in introducing the question pf Locus St::mdi f_'l}..'?.J.1.9.!.£ without being rnised by the ( ~espondent. 2,. Th::::t ':he Honour.2ble Jud~e w~ wrong :L-1. holding th~t 'the· opplir;~r:t is -n employee covered by the nmbit of s.4o A of the Security of Bnployment Act'. 1964. 'filhe respondent h-:-.s objected thie: .:ipplicdion on the ground, inter nlio., th::tt the remedy for th€ oJ.le,e'ed er:rorn co.n~ot be sought throllgh ·'.1 review but through .'.111 o.jjeol. I shnre the srune view with ·che rcspondent 1 s 1eD.rned coun2el Mr D M'.1.r:md-:.1 th:1.t the errors compb.ined of cQ.11 only be dealt with in ,'m :1~enl. This - court cannot condena itse1f for introducir..c th0 question. of Locus St.mdi , elf by holding thn.t. the..., o.pplic.:mt iP not. ':rr, .3uo Motu nor con it correct its ' employee :\.S held 0.'.lrlier. The low for review i.s very cle'.).r., The o.pplicnnt must so.tisfy the court that there fa a. di,scovery of ne,, .:md impD1'"4.:mt m:Jtter or evidence which, :i.fter the exercise of due diligence WDS•not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him o.t :the time when -the decree wos p:•ssed .or order me.de or tk•.t there i!', ~ error ::i.pporent on the record .. In the pre.sent cn.se there if:: nothing indicnting th.:ct there i,m.e :-. di.'3coYery of '5IJ.Y new m::i.tter or evidence or tho.t there i;:- ;:m error "pp.rent on the face of the record. • e L, "o .,/2 .... ' • The applicant i.10.d t1ot pleaded u1y__;'lere in his plaint t:te.t he wac; not mi employee covered by S.l+O A of the ~e,rnrity of Employment Acto 1961+ 0 His files in thi8 appl:i:cation cannot· be said to be a discovery of a ne•:i ma-!_:ter or evidence. He know nll thi~ befor8. Secondly, if the Honou1·0.ble Judge erred by raisine the is.sue of Locus Standi SUO MOTU without ::my pr&:yer by the respono.ent and ~fter the affidB.vit for proving ex parte has been filed, the reff.edy co.nnot be obtained by way of a review. This co~rt cru;not F;it .~ o.n o.ppello.te court on its 01.rm c.!J.USeo Application for review dism1s2ecl. ,,:ith copts. S.N.KD.ji g_QWE ~/8/1997 CORj\.M: Mshote DR - HC For the PJ.cintiff MJ'.R.Ai"! DU: For the Defc~dant CC Lo.z-,.rou.s ,, Delivered in ch,mber. m- HC I C]fI'IFY Tn..1T THIS LS. TRUE COPY OF 'fh'E ORIGmAL • ...