jitihadi 222 scanned

jitihadi 222 scanned

The oversight in describing Maombi Na. 585 of 2022 as an application to set aside exparte judgment instead of an application for extension of time to set aside exparte judgment was not fatal and did not prejudice the applicant's substantive rights or the outcome. The applicant failed to show sufficient grounds for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
jitihadi 222 scanned
Parties
Applicant: Jitihadi Shomvi; 1st Respondent: Selemani Athumani; 2nd Respondent: Mako Auction Mart
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Review / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review of Court Decisions, Extension of Time, Exparte Judgment, Technical Delay, Apparent Error on Face of Record
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land Law Review of Court Decisions Extension of Time Exparte Judgment Technical Delay Apparent Error on Face of Record

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jitihadi Shomvi

Applicant

Selemani Athumani

1st Respondent

Mako Auction Mart

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Review / Ruling on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an apparent error on the face of the record in the previous ruling regarding the nature of Maombi Na. 585 of 2022
  2. 2 Whether the oversight prejudiced the applicant's substantive rights
  3. 3 Whether the grounds raised are proper for review or appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The oversight in describing Maombi Na. 585 of 2022 as an application to set aside exparte judgment instead of an application for extension of time to set aside exparte judgment was not fatal and did not prejudice the applicant's substantive rights or the outcome. The applicant failed to show sufficient grounds for review as the main findings of the court remained unaffected by the oversight. Grounds two and four were found to be grounds of appeal, not review.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed with no order as to costs as the hearing was exparte.