19890818 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The defendant failed to show good cause for not filing the written statement of defence by the ordered date, as the reason given (lack of eviction order) was irrelevant to the present case. The application for discharge of the ex-parte order and extension of time is refused.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19890818 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Plaintiff: J. T. Di; Defendant: Thizimuju Liviu Supplies
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 18 August 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment After Ex Parte Proof
- Outcome
- Defendant's application refused; judgment for plaintiff as prayed.
- Legal Topics
- Ex Parte Proceedings, Extension of Time, Filing of Defence, Eviction Orders
- 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
J. T. Di
Plaintiff
Thizimuju Liviu Supplies
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Ex Parte Proof
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant has shown good cause for failure to file a written statement of defence within the extended time
- 2 Whether the ex-parte order should be discharged and time extended for defence
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant failed to show good cause for not filing the written statement of defence by the ordered date, as the reason given (lack of eviction order) was irrelevant to the present case. The application for discharge of the ex-parte order and extension of time is refused.
Court Disposition
Defendant's application refused; judgment for plaintiff as prayed.
Orders
- Defendant to bear the costs.
- Judgment entered for plaintiff as prayed in the plaint.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
J. T Di,R ~~ 81.Jdd~l'~ CIVIL CJ.G~ no. 78/89 • • • • • • • 0 • PLJ.INTIFF vorsuo TilI-JZ1iIUJ1 ~LIIvIU SUPPLIES • • • • • • ' Tho dofondm,.t socks tl:o diochnrgo of tho order for ox-pa.rte proof 1~1udo by this court on 20/7 /87 ns well as an extension of time to f~le its ~ritton Stato~ent of Defonce. Tho ex-parto order was 1:,nde upon t:10 def'o:adant I s f'niluro to present a written stato~ent of defence even after an extension of' time had been granted to it. Fa.rel.graph four of Dr. Laowci ! s affic.bvi t is in r,1y view orucinl. Tho loamed advocnto says tha-c he failed to file a wri tton sta tor:1ont of dofe1:ce boc2u:30 ho hcd foiled to obtnin a copy of tho eviction order t;.J.c.t :bad been :::12.de by tho ( "Iasutu Court" as tho court I s record uc.::. 1:1isGi:n.g. Ho argues that t:-io intended ~nnoxturo 1-.roulc~ s:..ou tl1.nt tho proceedings i::1 the Rogionnl Housing Tribunal wore lm.-1:ful. Qui to :fraru--...ly I do not understand tho point of' thn-t; 2.rguucnt • It seer.1s to ;:io thct the lc.wf'ulness of the :proceedings ~-:;_1 tho Tribunal is neit::or hero nor there in thic ces~, in viou of' tho f'nct tho.t tl1e de:fendant is not denying thc.t t~~oro ,ms a subsequent order allowing the plaintiff to re-enter end rnpossess the prornisos9 It is, therefore, ~ocdless for the dependnnt to attach the eviction order to his ploc::dings. I thus soc no good reason :for t0c Go~oadant 1 s failure to file a written stato~ent of ~cfence by J0/6/1989 as ordered on 17/6/1989. This 2pplicntiort is accorcli:r:.gly refused and the defendant is to bear tho costs. Dr. Lar.n-rai for Def'cnc.c:::nt absGnt Plaintiff present. i11 " T'-"t afu-3, c"1Ab D • F • Mi.PIGLUO JUDGE 18/8/1989 2 .t~t~lit I have filed affidavit 03 ordorod on 20/7/890 I pray :for .judgnont c.s p1.~c:yed in tJ:1e pl'c.int_. On tb.o strength of tho De: to::cialn sot out in tho plc:i:atiZ:f I c n:ff'idavi t, judgi·,1ont ic gi vcn to th0 ple.inti:ff ss proyod. in tho plc.int. I11toi~ost s~::cll run nt 10% p.a from 15/2/88 until tho date.of tho decree; and interest on tho docrotnl ar.1ount s:i.-~2.ll run at 9~~ p.a. from tho date of tho docroe. 18/8/1989