isaac minja vs the registered trustees of chama cha mapinduzi 3 others 2022 tzhclandd 12482 5 october 2022

isaac minja vs the registered trustees of chama cha mapinduzi 3 others 2022 tzhclandd 12482 5 october 2022

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to furnish security for due performance under Order 39 Rule 5(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, and did not provide sufficient particulars of irreparable loss. The mere existence of a pending application for extension of time does not justify a stay of execution.

Citation
isaac minja vs the registered trustees of chama cha mapinduzi 3 others 2022 tzhclandd 12482 5 october 2022
Parties
Applicant: Isaac Minja; 1st Respondent: The Registered Trustees of Chama Cha Mapinduzi; 2nd Respondent: Temeke Municipal Council; 3rd Respondent: The Commissioner for Lands; 4th Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
5 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Irreparable Loss, Extension of Time
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Irreparable Loss Extension of Time

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaac Minja

Applicant

The Registered Trustees of Chama Cha Mapinduzi

1st Respondent

Temeke Municipal Council

2nd Respondent

The Commissioner for Lands

3rd Respondent

The Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditions for granting stay of execution have been met under Order 39 Rule 5(3) of the Civil Procedure Code
  2. 2 Whether furnishing security for due performance is mandatory for a stay of execution
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated irreparable loss

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to furnish security for due performance under Order 39 Rule 5(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, and did not provide sufficient particulars of irreparable loss. The mere existence of a pending application for extension of time does not justify a stay of execution.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs