george t moyo vs karadha company limited 2005 tzhc 173 1 july 2005
The plaintiff failed to take any action or appear in court for four years, justifying dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rules 5 of the CPC 1966.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- george t moyo vs karadha company limited 2005 tzhc 173 1 july 2005
- Parties
- Plaintiff: George T. Moyo; Defendant: Karadha Company Limited
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 July 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Pre Trial Conference, Case Management
- 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
George T. Moyo
Plaintiff
Karadha Company Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inaction by the plaintiff
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff failed to take any action or appear in court for four years, justifying dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution under Order 17 Rules 5 of the CPC 1966.
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution with costs.
Orders
- Suit struck out for want of prosecution with costs under Order 17 Rules 5 of the CPC 1966.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2000 GEORGE T. MOYO................................................ PLAINTIFF VERSUS KARADHA COMPANY LIMITED........................ DEFENDANT 11/7/05 CORAM: MLAY, 3 . PARTIES: ABSENT COURT: This suit was filed on 19/01/2000. On 3/5/2000 the Plaintiffs advocate Mr. Loyed informed the Court that the pleadings were complete and Pre-trial Conference was set for 30/6/2000. On five subsequent occasions the matter came up but pre-trial Conference was not held. On 23/10/2001 the matter came up for the 6th occasion for Pre-trial Conference. The Plaintiffs Counsel and the Plaintiff were both absent. Mr. Ngatunga advocate for the Defendant informed the court that the Defendant has been placed under LART and in view of the changes, the matter be adjourned for mention to allow Plaintiff to determine next course of 2 action. Since that day on 23/10/2001, the matter has come up for mention thirteen times (13) in a space of four years, without the Plaintiff or his advocate having appearance. In other words the Plaintiff has not taken any action in furtherance of the suit for four years or even informing the court of the next Course of action, if the Defendant has been placed under LART. In the circumstances this Court has no option except to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. The suit is accordingly struck out for want of Prosecution, with Costs under Order 17 Rules 5 of the CPC 1966. 1/07/2005