Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZCA

mlay vs lauwo others 2016 tzca 118 18 october 2016

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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The appeal was withdrawn because the appellant failed to obtain the mandatory prior leave of the High Court, and all parties consented to the withdrawal.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appeal withdrawn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  • Appeal marked withdrawn under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.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 Munuo

Hedal General Supplies Co. Ltd

2nd Respondent Counsel: Mr. Nicholas Munuo

Standard Chartered Bank (Tanzania) Limited

3rd Respondent Counsel: Mr. Edwin Lyaro

Yono Auction Mart & Court Brokers Ltd

4th Respondent Counsel: Mr. Edwin Lyaro

Silver Palm Khotel Tanzania Limited

5th Respondent Counsel: Mr. Gwakisa Samba and Mr. Ipanga Kimmaay

03

Procedural history

  1. 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Whether the appeal can be withdrawn for lack of prior leave of the High Court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

  1. 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    Appeal may be withdrawn where procedural requirements are not met, with leave of the court.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The appeal was withdrawn because the appellant failed to obtain the mandatory prior leave of the High Court, and all parties consented to the withdrawal.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appeal withdrawn

  • Appeal marked withdrawn under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.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.

Source document

TZCA

Judgment· 18 October 2016

mlay vs lauwo others 2016 tzca 118 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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Rule 4(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.