RULING OF JAMSON JOHN KANYIKI VS OCEAN ROAD CANCER INSTITUTE

RULING OF JAMSON JOHN KANYIKI VS OCEAN ROAD CANCER INSTITUTE

The application was struck out because it was instituted against a non-existent party (the 4th respondent), making any orders sought unenforceable. The defect in the affidavit was not fatal after expunging the offending paragraphs, but the existence of a non-existent party was incurable.

Citation
RULING OF JAMSON JOHN KANYIKI VS OCEAN ROAD CANCER INSTITUTE
Parties
Applicant: Jamson John Kanyiki; 1st Respondent: Ocean Road Cancer Institute; 2nd Respondent: Prince General Investment Limited; 3rd Respondent: Mbeya City Council; 4th Respondent: Ministry for Healty, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Childred; 5th Respondent: The Commissioner for Land; 6th Respondent: The Registrar of Titles; 7th Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Application struck out
Legal Topics
Affidavit Defects, Misjoinder of Parties, Non Existent Parties, Preliminary Objections, Mareva Injunction
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Affidavit Defects Misjoinder of Parties Non Existent Parties Preliminary Objections Mareva Injunction

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamson John Kanyiki

Applicant

Ocean Road Cancer Institute

1st Respondent

Prince General Investment Limited

2nd Respondent

Mbeya City Council

3rd Respondent

Ministry for Healty, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Childred

4th Respondent

The Commissioner for Land

5th Respondent

The Registrar of Titles

6th Respondent

The Attorney General

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit in support of the application is fatally defective for containing hearsay, arguments, feelings, and conclusions contrary to Order XIX Rule 3(1) of the CPC
  2. 2 Whether the application is bad in law for being instituted against a non-existent party

Ratio Decidendi

The application was struck out because it was instituted against a non-existent party (the 4th respondent), making any orders sought unenforceable. The defect in the affidavit was not fatal after expunging the offending paragraphs, but the existence of a non-existent party was incurable.

Court Disposition

Application struck out

Orders

  • Application is struck out for being instituted against a non-existent party (4th respondent).
  • No order as to costs.