mlay vs lauwo others 2016 tzca 118 18 october 2016
- Citation
- mlay vs lauwo others 2016 tzca 118 18 october 2016
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 18 October 2016
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Withdrawal Before Hearing
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 18 October 2016
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Withdrawal Before Hearing
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was withdrawn because the appellant failed to obtain the mandatory prior leave of the High Court, and all parties consented to the withdrawal.
Court disposition
appeal withdrawn
Orders
- Appeal marked withdrawn under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Harold Emmanuel Mathayo Mlay
Appellant Counsel: Mr. Wilson Jacob Mallya (withdrew)Hellen Daniel Lauwo
1st Respondent Counsel: Mr. Nicholas MunuoHedal General Supplies Co. Ltd
2nd Respondent Counsel: Mr. Nicholas MunuoStandard Chartered Bank (Tanzania) Limited
3rd Respondent Counsel: Mr. Edwin LyaroYono Auction Mart & Court Brokers Ltd
4th Respondent Counsel: Mr. Edwin LyaroSilver Palm Khotel Tanzania Limited
5th Respondent Counsel: Mr. Gwakisa Samba and Mr. Ipanga Kimmaay03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Withdrawal Before Hearing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the appeal can be withdrawn for lack of prior leave of the High Court
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant prayed for withdrawal of the appeal to enable him to return with a properly constituted record of appeal, acknowledging the lack of mandatory prior leave of the High Court.
- Respondent
- All respondents' counsel supported or did not object to the withdrawal; third and fourth respondents did not press for costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009
Appeal may be withdrawn where procedural requirements are not met, with leave of the court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was withdrawn because the appellant failed to obtain the mandatory prior leave of the High Court, and all parties consented to the withdrawal.
Obiter and limits
- The best interests of justice are served by granting the withdrawal.
Court disposition
appeal withdrawn
- Appeal marked withdrawn under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
TZCA · 18 October 2016
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZCA
Judgment· 18 October 2016
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA
AT ARUSHA (CORAM: MJASIRI, J.A., MUSSA, J.A., And JUMA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2016 HAROLD EMMANUEL MATHAYO MLAY • • • . • • . • . . • . . . . • . • • • • . • APPELLANT
VERSUS 1. HELLEN DANIEL LAUWO••••••••••••••.•........••.••• 1 sT RESPONDENT 2. HEDAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CO. LTD .•••••••....•••.••• 2No RESPONDENT 3. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (TANZANIA) LIMITED ••••• 3Ro RESPONDENT 4. YONO AUCTION MART & COURT BROKERS Ltd •.•••••••.• 4TH RESPONDENT 5. SILVER PALM KHOTEL TANZANIA LIMITED ••..•....•.••. 5TH RESPONDENT (Application from the Ruling and Orders of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha) (Massengi, J.) Dated 15th day of September, 2015 in Land Case No.59 of2014
ORDER OF THE COURT JUMA, J.A.: When this appeal came up for hearing today, the appellant appeared in person, his learned counsel, Mr. Wilson Jacob Mallya having earlier written a letter to withdraw his representation of the appellant in this appeal. After a brief interaction with the Court over the mandatory requirement of prior leave of the High Court, which is missing out in this 1 appeal, the appellant prayed for withdrawal. He explained that the withdrawal of his appeal will enable him to come back to the Court with a properly constituted record of appeal. Mr. Nicholas Munuo, the learned counsel who appeared for the first and second respondents, supported the prayer for withdrawal. The prayer for withdrawal had the full support of Mr. Edwin Lyaro learned counsel for third and fourth respondents who also did not press for costs. On his part, Mr. Gwakisa Samba learned counsel who appeared together with Mr. Ipanga Kimmaay, for the fifth respondent, had no objection. On our part, we think the best interests of justice will be served if the prayer for withdrawal is granted. This appeal is as a result marked withdrawn under Rule 4 (2) (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. 2 DATED at ARUSHA this 18th day of October, 2016. S. MJASIRI
JUSTICE OF APPEAL K. M. MUSSA
JUSTICE OF APPEAL I. H. JUMA
JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. h~ I. '""' .Ye . '· -~'. . ,. . ,,;,,,;, -:"; :... • r • ' c • ~c . , . .... "' ... -. B. R. NYAKI ~ ~· ..,, ,,~."' .. : :. ' ~ ·'· DEPUTY REGISTRAR ~~ :· • I I
COURT OF APPEAL ~ , ... ~ .. ..~ ,_ - >' ~ 3
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.