guoming tang vs chama cha ushirika wa wakulima wa umwagiliaji ruvu chaura 2019 tzhc 39 15 october 2019
The application was filed out of time; as per Section 3(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, the proper remedy is dismissal with costs.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- guoming tang vs chama cha ushirika wa wakulima wa umwagiliaji ruvu chaura 2019 tzhc 39 15 october 2019
- Parties
- Applicant: Guoming Tang; Respondent: Chama Cha Ushirika wa Wakulima wa Umwagiliaji Ruvu (CHAURU)
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 15 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Misc. Civil Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Preliminary Objection, Costs
- 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
Guoming Tang
Applicant
Chama Cha Ushirika wa Wakulima wa Umwagiliaji Ruvu (CHAURU)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Misc. Civil Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application was filed within the prescribed limitation period
- 2 Appropriate remedy for filing out of time
Ratio Decidendi
The application was filed out of time; as per Section 3(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, the proper remedy is dismissal with costs.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs.
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 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 159 OF 2019 (Originating from Misc. Civil Application No. 366 of 2018) GUOMING TANG..................... ....................... APPLICANT VERSUS CHAMA CHA USHIRIKA WA WAKULIMA WA UMWAGILIAJI RUVU (CHAURU)........... RESPONDENT RULING 15/10 & 15/10/2019. S.M. KULITA, J. Advocate for the Applicant concedes with the Preliminary Objection that the application has been filed out of time and prayed to withdraw the same. On the other hand the State Attorney one Mkama Msalama who represents the Respondent argued that as per S.3(1) of the law of Limitation Act [Cap. 89 R.E 2002] the remedy for such wrong is the dismissal of the application with costs and not withdrawal. He therefore prays the matter to be dismissed with costs. According to the said provision, Section 3(1) of the Law of Limitation Act [Cap 89 RE 2002] the remedy is dismissal of the i application. As the Respondent used to attend the court for this matter and filed a Reply thereto (Counter Affidavit) which is accompanied with the notice of Preliminary. I find he deserved to be awarded costs and I so order. S.M. Kulita JUDGE 15/ 10/2019 2