flora gordon kakumwela vs amani wema mtengwa and gordon kakumwela mwaipalu 2021 tzhclandd 246 30 june 2021

flora gordon kakumwela vs amani wema mtengwa and gordon kakumwela mwaipalu 2021 tzhclandd 246 30 june 2021

The applicant, being a minor at the time, was under the control of her father, the second respondent, who was a party to the proceedings and in possession of the property. The wall in dispute was not originally her property, and she was aware of the proceedings. There is no prejudice or injustice to the applicant by execution of the demolition order. The application lacks merit.

Citation
flora gordon kakumwela vs amani wema mtengwa and gordon kakumwela mwaipalu 2021 tzhclandd 246 30 june 2021
Parties
Applicant: Flora Gordon Kakumwela; 1st Respondent: Amani Wema Mtengwa; 2nd Respondent: Gordon Kakumwela Mwaipalu
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Investigation of Claim and Objection to Attachment of Property
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Objection to Attachment, Execution of Decree, Joinder of Parties, Minor's Representation
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Objection to Attachment Execution of Decree Joinder of Parties Minor's Representation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flora Gordon Kakumwela

Applicant

Amani Wema Mtengwa

1st Respondent

Gordon Kakumwela Mwaipalu

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Investigation of Claim and Objection to Attachment of Property

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has sufficient grounds for the court to investigate the property subject to demolition order in Execution No. 06 of 2020
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was prejudiced by not being impleaded as a party while a minor

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, being a minor at the time, was under the control of her father, the second respondent, who was a party to the proceedings and in possession of the property. The wall in dispute was not originally her property, and she was aware of the proceedings. There is no prejudice or injustice to the applicant by execution of the demolition order. The application lacks merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Each party to bear their own costs