george m shambwe vs attorney general and another 1996 tzca 35 10 june 1996

george m shambwe vs attorney general and another 1996 tzca 35 10 june 1996

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in striking out the sub-paragraphs without granting leave to amend or to provide further and better particulars. The Court found that striking out the paragraphs amounted to dismissal of the petition, which is not permitted under Rule 27(1) of the Elections (Elections Petitions) Rules, 1971, unless there is a miscarriage of justice. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order striking out the sub-paragraphs, and ordered that the appellant be allowed to amend the petition within a specified period.

Citation
george m shambwe vs attorney general and another 1996 tzca 35 10 june 1996
Parties
Appellant: George M. Shambwe; 1st Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; 2nd Respondent: Peter Sigela Nswima
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 June 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Ruling on Election Petition Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Election Petitions, Amendment of Pleadings, Striking Out Pleadings, Fair Trial
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Election Law Pleadings Election Petitions Amendment of Pleadings Striking Out Pleadings Fair Trial

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George M. Shambwe

Appellant

The Hon. Attorney General

1st Respondent

Peter Sigela Nswima

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Ruling on Election Petition Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in striking out sub-paragraphs of the election petition for vagueness and lack of particulars
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner should have been granted leave to amend the petition or provide further and better particulars instead of striking out the paragraphs
  3. 3 Whether striking out the paragraphs amounted to dismissal of the petition contrary to the Elections (Elections Petitions) Rules, 1971

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in striking out the sub-paragraphs without granting leave to amend or to provide further and better particulars. The Court found that striking out the paragraphs amounted to dismissal of the petition, which is not permitted under Rule 27(1) of the Elections (Elections Petitions) Rules, 1971, unless there is a miscarriage of justice. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order striking out the sub-paragraphs, and ordered that the appellant be allowed to amend the petition within a specified period.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court striking out sub-paragraphs set aside
  • Appellant granted leave to amend the petition within 14 days