20090320 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 20090320 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 20 March 2009
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 20 March 2009
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was struck out with costs due to the appellant's failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
Court disposition
appeal struck out with costs
Orders
- appeal struck out for want of prosecution
- costs awarded to respondent
02
Material facts
Parties
Jane Anasel Laizer
AppellantRaphael Laizer
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution
Party arguments
- Applicant
- No written submissions were filed; no explanation provided for failure to comply with court order.
- Respondent
- Appellant has lost interest or failed to prosecute the appeal as required.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 8 of Order IX of the Civil Procedure Act, 1966 [CAP.33 R.E. 2002]
Appeal may be struck out for want of prosecution if appellant fails to comply with court orders.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was struck out with costs due to the appellant's failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
Court disposition
appeal struck out with costs
- appeal struck out for want of prosecution
- costs awarded to respondent
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 20 March 2009
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.
TZHC
Judgment· 20 March 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY
AT DAR ES SALAAM P.C CIVIL APPEAL NO.106 OF 2007 [Appeal from the decision of Hon. Mshasha, RM dated 28th September, 2007 in Mlsc. Application No.7 of 2007 originating from decision of Mark B. (PCM) dated 5th December, 2006 of Kinondoni Primary Court in Matrimonial Cause No.40 of 2006] JANE ANASEL LAIZER ....................................................._... APPELLANT
VERSUS RAPHAEL LAIZER ........................................................... RESPONDENT Date of last order - 30/07/2008 Date of iudgment - 20/03/2009
JUDGMENT MAKARAMBA, J. It is unfortunate that the Applicant to this date has not served the Respondent with written submissions in support of the appeal as ordered by this Court on 30/07/2008 and has not bothered to explain to this Court the reasons for not doing so. It seems very clearly as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, that the appellant has either lost interest in the appeal or that she has failed to prosecute her appeal as requi�ed and ordered by this Court. In the circumstances, this Court is left with but one option and that is to strike out the appeal witt:l costs under Rule 8 of Order IX of the Civil Procedure Act, 1966 [CAP.33 R.E. 2002]. 1 ._ ·1 L The appeal is hereby struck out with costs for want of prosecution. It is so ordered. Ii • • e II ii • • I ,i • io • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ • ■ • • • R.V. MAKARAMBA
JUDGE 20/03/2009 2 ~' (t-·--. ·~.... ,.-·• Ruling delivered in Chambers this.��f -�-�o-o: �; the presence of: For the Appellant: ... .......................................... � ............................... . For the Respondent: .. &..:... --��---�'.���-�--<'.!.t� R.V. MAKARAMBA lU-BG-E.---- - - - ---- - 20/03/2009 3
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.