grand regency hotel ltd vs pazi ally others 2019 tzca 76 14 february 2019

grand regency hotel ltd vs pazi ally others 2019 tzca 76 14 february 2019

The application is incompetent as it improperly impleaded respondents who were not parties below and failed to properly plead the administrator of the estate; the applicant cannot drag strangers into the revision and the grounds for relief do not justify their inclusion.

Citation
grand regency hotel ltd vs pazi ally others 2019 tzca 76 14 february 2019
Parties
Applicant: Grand Regency Hotel Limited; 1st Respondent: Pazi Ally; 2nd Respondent: Fatuma Ally; 3rd Respondent: Sauda Ally; 4th Respondent: Jumanne Ally; 5th Respondent: Rehema Ally; 6th Respondent: Idd Ally
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
14 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision Application / Ruling on Competence of Application
Outcome
application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Revisional Jurisdiction, Right to Be Heard, Joinder of Parties, Competence of Application
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Probate and Administration Revisional Jurisdiction Right to Be Heard Joinder of Parties Competence of Application

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grand Regency Hotel Limited

Applicant

Pazi Ally

1st Respondent

Fatuma Ally

2nd Respondent

Sauda Ally

3rd Respondent

Jumanne Ally

4th Respondent

Rehema Ally

5th Respondent

Idd Ally

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision Application / Ruling on Competence of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was denied the right to be heard before the High Court
  2. 2 Whether respondents who were not parties below can be impleaded in revision
  3. 3 Whether the application is competent given the parties impleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The application is incompetent as it improperly impleaded respondents who were not parties below and failed to properly plead the administrator of the estate; the applicant cannot drag strangers into the revision and the grounds for relief do not justify their inclusion.

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs

Orders

  • application struck out
  • costs awarded to respondents