19990527 TZHC Arusha

19990527 TZHC Arusha

The High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966 is limited to cases involving jurisdictional errors or material irregularity. In this case, the District Magistrate acted within her jurisdiction, and the challenged order was interlocutory with the main application still pending. Therefore, there was no 'case decided' to warrant revision, and the application was dismissed.

Citation
19990527 TZHC Arusha
Parties
Applicant: Iddi Selemani; Respondent: Not specified
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Revision Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Orders, Jurisdiction of Subordinate Courts, Limitation of Actions
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Revision Jurisdiction Interlocutory Orders Jurisdiction of Subordinate Courts Limitation of Actions

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iddi Selemani

Applicant

Not specified

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966 can be invoked in respect of an interlocutory order where the subordinate court had jurisdiction and the matter is still pending
  2. 2 Whether the District Magistrate acted outside her jurisdiction or with material irregularity in the proceedings challenged

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966 is limited to cases involving jurisdictional errors or material irregularity. In this case, the District Magistrate acted within her jurisdiction, and the challenged order was interlocutory with the main application still pending. Therefore, there was no 'case decided' to warrant revision, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for revision dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs