hi bros canvas tents ltd another vs nimrose parves hirji 2023 tzhc 15853 28 february 2023
The plaintiffs failed to appear in court without sufficient cause, justifying dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution under Order IX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- hi bros canvas tents ltd another vs nimrose parves hirji 2023 tzhc 15853 28 february 2023
- Parties
- Plaintiff: HI-BRO’S CANVAS & TENTS LTD; Plaintiff: PARVES ABDULHUSSEIN HIRJI; Defendant: NIMROSE PARVES HIRJI
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 28 February 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome
- dismissed for want of prosecution
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Absence of Parties, Order IX Rule 2 CPC
- 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
HI-BRO’S CANVAS & TENTS LTD
Plaintiff
PARVES ABDULHUSSEIN HIRJI
Plaintiff
NIMROSE PARVES HIRJI
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to plaintiffs' absence
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs failed to appear in court without sufficient cause, justifying dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution under Order IX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- Suit dismissed for want of prosecution under Order IX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 28 OF 2019 1. HI-BRO’S CANVAS & TENTS LTD…………………...PLAINTIFF 2. PARVES ABDULHUSSEIN HIRJI………………..……PLAINTIFF VERSUS NIMROSE PARVES HIRJI……………………….…… DEFENDANT RULING This is a backlog case filed by the plaintiffs on 13/2/2019. It took the court almost a year to sort out all preliminary matters before it could go for an ex-parte proof which was fixed to commence on 23/4/2020. The hearing could not however proceed for various reasons from that date to date. It is also evident from the records that, the last time the plaintiffs’ counsel appeared in court was on 16/11/2021, and no apparent reason justifying their absence in court. It is the legal position that parties to the suit are required to attend the court either in person or by their advocates. The absence of a party on a date scheduled for hearing without sufficient cause has its consequences under Rule 2 of Order IX of the CPC Cap 33 RE 2019 states: “Where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing the court may make an order that the suit be dismissed.” Given the explained situation above, this court is of the view that the plaintiff has lost interest on the matter and proceed to dismiss the same 1 for want of prosecution under Order IX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, with no order as to costs. E. Y Mkwizu Judge 28/2/2023 2