GASSO WILLIAM scanned

GASSO WILLIAM scanned

The suit is time barred as it seeks to set aside a sale in execution of a decree, which occurred in 2012, and was filed after the two-year limitation period. The Plaintiff failed to plead grounds for exemption from limitation law in the plaint, thus cannot benefit from exclusion of time spent in other proceedings.

Citation
GASSO WILLIAM scanned
Parties
Plaintiff: Gasso Anyimike William; 1st Defendant: Winfred Maro; 2nd Defendant: Unyangala Auction Mart Ltd; 3rd Defendant: Baji Shomari; 4th Defendant: Editruda Peter Mulumba (As Administratrix of the Estate of the Late Peter Joseph Mulumba); 5th Defendant: Commissioner for Lands; 6th Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Outcome
Suit dismissed as time barred
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Execution of Decrees, Setting Aside Sale, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Execution of Decrees Setting Aside Sale Jurisdiction

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gasso Anyimike William

Plaintiff

Winfred Maro

1st Defendant

Unyangala Auction Mart Ltd

2nd Defendant

Baji Shomari

3rd Defendant

Editruda Peter Mulumba (As Administratrix of the Estate of the Late Peter Joseph Mulumba)

4th Defendant

Commissioner for Lands

5th Defendant

The Attorney General

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property
  2. 2 Whether the Fifth Defendant was justified in law to grant certificate of title to the First Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the sale of the suit property to the First Defendant under court supervision was lawful and valid

Ratio Decidendi

The suit is time barred as it seeks to set aside a sale in execution of a decree, which occurred in 2012, and was filed after the two-year limitation period. The Plaintiff failed to plead grounds for exemption from limitation law in the plaint, thus cannot benefit from exclusion of time spent in other proceedings.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed as time barred

Orders

  • Each party to bear own costs