hemed suleiman hemed another vs hajji ame jecha others 2019 tzca 508 13 december 2019

hemed suleiman hemed another vs hajji ame jecha others 2019 tzca 508 13 december 2019

The certificate of delay was defective as it excluded time from the date of the notice of appeal instead of the date of the letter applying for certified copies, contrary to Rule 90(1). This defect is fatal and renders the appeal time-barred and incompetent.

Citation
hemed suleiman hemed another vs hajji ame jecha others 2019 tzca 508 13 december 2019
Parties
Appellant: Hemed Suleiman Hemed; Appellant: Muhammed Suleiman Hemed; Respondent: Hajji Ame Jecha; Respondent: Jecha Ame Jecha; Respondent: Hamad Ame Jecha; Respondent: Bi Nuru Ame Jecha; Respondent: Mwakitu Ame Jecha; Respondent: Saada Ame Jecha; Respondent: Ahmed Saleh Mbarouk; Respondent: Katibu Mtendaji Kamisheni ya Wakfu
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Certificate of Delay, Appeal Competence, Time Barred Appeals, Revisional Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Certificate of Delay Appeal Competence Time Barred Appeals Revisional Jurisdiction

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

Parties

Hemed Suleiman Hemed

Appellant

Muhammed Suleiman Hemed

Appellant

Hajji Ame Jecha

Respondent

Jecha Ame Jecha

Respondent

Hamad Ame Jecha

Respondent

Bi Nuru Ame Jecha

Respondent

Mwakitu Ame Jecha

Respondent

Saada Ame Jecha

Respondent

Ahmed Saleh Mbarouk

Respondent

Katibu Mtendaji Kamisheni ya Wakfu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defect in the certificate of delay invalidated the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the appeal was time-barred due to the defective certificate

Ratio Decidendi

The certificate of delay was defective as it excluded time from the date of the notice of appeal instead of the date of the letter applying for certified copies, contrary to Rule 90(1). This defect is fatal and renders the appeal time-barred and incompetent.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • Appeal struck out for want of a proper certificate of delay
  • Each party to bear its own costs