joe gregory kapeleula vs francis edwin lukendakenda others 2018 tzhclandd 512 3 august 2018

joe gregory kapeleula vs francis edwin lukendakenda others 2018 tzhclandd 512 3 august 2018

The preliminary objection was overruled because the parties in the current suit are different from the previous suit, and thus Order IX Rule 9(1) does not bar the present suit. However, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for failing to disclose when the cause of action arose, a mandatory pleading requirement.

Citation
joe gregory kapeleula vs francis edwin lukendakenda others 2018 tzhclandd 512 3 august 2018
Parties
Plaintiff: Joe Gregory Kapeleula; 1st Defendant: Francis Edwin Lukendakenda; 2nd Defendant: Nicholas Kipalanga; 3rd Defendant: Agnes Ishengoma
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
3 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Scrutiny of Plaint
Outcome
Plaint rejected for failure to disclose when the cause of action arose; preliminary objection overruled; no order as to costs; counterclaim to proceed.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Limitation of Actions, Pleading Requirements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Preliminary Objection Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Limitation of Actions Pleading Requirements

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joe Gregory Kapeleula

Plaintiff

Francis Edwin Lukendakenda

1st Defendant

Nicholas Kipalanga

2nd Defendant

Agnes Ishengoma

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Scrutiny of Plaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit is barred by Order IX Rule 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Code due to previous dismissal for want of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the plaint discloses when the cause of action arose as required by Order VII Rule 1(e) of the Civil Procedure Code

Ratio Decidendi

The preliminary objection was overruled because the parties in the current suit are different from the previous suit, and thus Order IX Rule 9(1) does not bar the present suit. However, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for failing to disclose when the cause of action arose, a mandatory pleading requirement.

Court Disposition

Plaint rejected for failure to disclose when the cause of action arose; preliminary objection overruled; no order as to costs; counterclaim to proceed.

Orders

  • Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code
  • No order as to costs