Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TANZLII

JAMES KHATIBU 222 Edit

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal was filed out of time and is incompetent; additionally, the appellant's absence justified dismissal for want of prosecution.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed for being time barred and for want of prosecution
  • costs awarded to respondent

02

Material facts

Parties

James Khatibu

Appellant

Ismail Ramadhani Kilala

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Appeal / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
No argument presented; appellant absent.
Respondent
No argument presented; respondent present.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 25(b) of the Magistrates Court Act

    Appeals from district court exercising appellate jurisdiction must be filed within thirty days; High Court may extend time.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal was filed out of time and is incompetent; additionally, the appellant's absence justified dismissal for want of prosecution.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

  • appeal dismissed for being time barred and for want of prosecution
  • costs awarded to respondent

Source and reliance status

TANZLII · 14 November 2024

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TANZLII

Judgment· 14 November 2024

JAMES KHATIBU 222 Edit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA SUB-REGISTRY OF MANYARA

AT BABATI PC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 23107 OF 2024 (Arising from Civil Appeal No. 2/2024 of Kiteto District Court, Originating from Civil Case No. 39 of2023 from Kibaya Primary Court) JAMES KHATIBU....................................................... APPELLANT

VERSUS ISMAIL RAMADHANI KI LA LA............................................... RESPONDENT

RULING 14h & 14/ November, 2024 Kahyoza, J. The first appellate court record depicts that the judgment was delivered on 14th August, 2024 and the appellant lodged the appeal on 17.09.2024. section 25(b) of the Magistrates Court Act provides that, a person aggrieved by the decision of the district court when exercising its appellate jurisdiction shall appeal within thirty days. It reads- "25. -(1) sa ve as hereinafter provide- (a) in proceedings of a criminal nature,... (b) in any other proceedings any party, if aggrieved by the decision or order of a district court in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction may, within thirty days after the date of the decision or order, appeal there from to i the High Court; and the High Court may extend the time for filing an appeal either before or after such period of thirty days has expired." The appellant was obliged to lodge the appeal within 30 days from the date of the judgment. Thirty days expired on 13.9.2024 and the appeal was lodged on 17.09.2024. it is now settled that the date of filing the matter to court, if the filing is subject to payment of fees, is the date when the control number was issued. I find that the appellant filed the appeal out of time. The appeal is incompetent and I proceed to dismiss it with costs for being filed out of time. Even if the appeal was filed on time, which is not, the fact that

the appellant is absent and he is the one who served the respondent with the summons to appear today for hearing, the appeal would have been dismissed for want of prosecution. In the end, I dismiss the appeal for being both time barred and for want of prosecution with costs. I order accordingly. Dated at Babati this 14th day of November, 2024. John R. Kahyoza Judge 2 Court: Ruling delivered in the absence of the appellant and in the presence of the appellant and in the presence of the respondent. B/C. Mr. Shadrack (RMA) present. John R. Kahyoza Judge 14. 11. 2024 3

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Magistrates Court Act, Section 25(b)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.