gervas mkoromi and others vs joyce mkoromi 2012 tzhclandd 9 27 september 2012
The appeal was dismissed as there was no prosecution and counsel for the appellants withdrew due to lack of instructions, in accordance with Order 39 Rule 17(1) of the CPC.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- gervas mkoromi and others vs joyce mkoromi 2012 tzhclandd 9 27 september 2012
- Parties
- Appellant: Gervas Mkoromi and Others; Respondent: Joyce Mkoromi
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 27 September 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land Appeal / Final Disposition
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appeal Dismissal, Withdrawal of Counsel
- 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
Gervas Mkoromi and Others
Appellant
Joyce Mkoromi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Final Disposition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should proceed in absence of prosecution
- 2 Effect of counsel's withdrawal on appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed as there was no prosecution and counsel for the appellants withdrew due to lack of instructions, in accordance with Order 39 Rule 17(1) of the CPC.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed under Order 39 Rule 17(1) of the Civil Procedure Code
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2010 (From the Decision o f the District Land and Housing Tribunal ofM AGOM ENI District at KINONDONI in Land Case No. 99 o f 2006) GERVAS MKOROMI AND O T H E R S.............APPELLANTS VERSUS JOYCE M K O RO M I..................................... RESPONDENT 27/09/2012 Coram: Hon. P.S. Fikirini, Judge: For Appellant: Mr. Ntonge for the appellants For Respondent: absent CC. Munuo Ntonge’s: Since I was instructed I have not heard from my clients. I have tried all I could do in tracing them including calling them. I feel there is lack of cooperation and proper instruction and therefore pray to withdraw from the conduct of the matter. Court: The counsel's request for withdrawal from the conduct of the case on behalf of the appellants granted. But this court as well do not see any point of keeping the matter which is not being prosecuted. In view of that the court as well dismissed 0. 39 Rules 17(1) of CPC. Order: Appeal dismissed under 0.39 Rules 17(1) of the CPC. P.S. FIKIRINI JUDGE 27th SEPTEMBER 2012