jmaes kabalo mapalala vs british broadcasting corporation 2002 tzca 11 11 november 2002

jmaes kabalo mapalala vs british broadcasting corporation 2002 tzca 11 11 november 2002

The High Court judge acted without jurisdiction in granting review and quashing his own judgment after becoming functus officio; amendment of the plaint after judgment is not permitted; the appellant was not an aggrieved party entitled to review; all proceedings following the application for review were a nullity.

Citation
jmaes kabalo mapalala vs british broadcasting corporation 2002 tzca 11 11 november 2002
Parties
Appellant: James Kabalo Mapalala; Respondent: British Broadcasting Corporation
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
11 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Consolidated Appeals From High Court Judgment and Decree
Outcome
Appeal allowed; proceedings quashed as nullity
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Functus Officio, Execution of Foreign Judgments, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Review of Judgment Amendment of Pleadings Functus Officio Execution of Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kabalo Mapalala

Appellant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Consolidated Appeals From High Court Judgment and Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge had lawful power to quash his own judgment and proceedings after delivery of judgment and start hearing the case afresh
  2. 2 Whether amendment of the plaint is permissible after delivery of judgment
  3. 3 Whether the application for review was properly before the court

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court judge acted without jurisdiction in granting review and quashing his own judgment after becoming functus officio; amendment of the plaint after judgment is not permitted; the appellant was not an aggrieved party entitled to review; all proceedings following the application for review were a nullity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; proceedings quashed as nullity

Orders

  • All proceedings from the application for extension of time to apply for review on 30.5.1997 to the High Court judgment of 13.12.2000 are quashed
  • The High Court judgment of 13.4.1995 remains valid