jacquiline t limited vs exim bank t limited 2024 tzca 158 29 february 2024

jacquiline t limited vs exim bank t limited 2024 tzca 158 29 february 2024

The application for revision is incompetent because the impugned High Court decision was interlocutory and did not finally determine the rights of the parties in the suit, thus falling within the bar of section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.

Citation
jacquiline t limited vs exim bank t limited 2024 tzca 158 29 february 2024
Parties
Applicant: Jacquiline Donath Kweka Abrahamson; 1st Respondent: Exim Bank (T) Limited; 2nd Respondent: John Harald Christerabramsson; 3rd Respondent: Dascar Limited; 4th Respondent: Mass & Associates Company Ltd & Court Broker; 5th Respondent: Yusuph Shaban Matimbwa
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Revision Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Orders, Jurisdiction of High Court, Execution of Decrees, Matrimonial Property
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Revision Jurisdiction Interlocutory Orders Jurisdiction of High Court Execution of Decrees Matrimonial Property

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacquiline Donath Kweka Abrahamson

Applicant

Exim Bank (T) Limited

1st Respondent

John Harald Christerabramsson

2nd Respondent

Dascar Limited

3rd Respondent

Mass & Associates Company Ltd & Court Broker

4th Respondent

Yusuph Shaban Matimbwa

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for revision is competent in light of section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
  2. 2 Whether the impugned High Court decision was interlocutory or final
  3. 3 Whether missing documents in the record render the application incompetent

Ratio Decidendi

The application for revision is incompetent because the impugned High Court decision was interlocutory and did not finally determine the rights of the parties in the suit, thus falling within the bar of section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The application is struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.