fem construction co ltd vs nkululeko karanja 2007 tzhc 58 29 june 2007

fem construction co ltd vs nkululeko karanja 2007 tzhc 58 29 june 2007

The affidavit in support of the application to set aside the ex parte judgment was defective as it contained arguments, submissions, and opinions rather than being confined to facts within the deponents' own knowledge, contravening Order XIX rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The trial court was correct in striking out the application as incompetent.

Citation
fem construction co ltd vs nkululeko karanja 2007 tzhc 58 29 june 2007
Parties
Appellant: FEM Construction Co. Ltd; Respondent: Nkululeko Karanja
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Affidavit Defects, Ex Parte Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Default Judgment, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Affidavit Defects Ex Parte Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Default Judgment Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FEM Construction Co. Ltd

Appellant

Nkululeko Karanja

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit supporting the application to set aside the ex parte judgment was defective under Order XIX rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
  2. 2 Whether the trial court was correct in striking out the application to set aside the ex parte judgment due to affidavit defects

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit in support of the application to set aside the ex parte judgment was defective as it contained arguments, submissions, and opinions rather than being confined to facts within the deponents' own knowledge, contravening Order XIX rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The trial court was correct in striking out the application as incompetent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs