20090917 TZHC Dar es Salaam

20090917 TZHC Dar es Salaam

The application for leave to apply for prerogative orders against the Attorney General was filed more than ten years after the Industrial Court decision, far outside the six-month limitation period prescribed by law. The court order of 15/5/2002 did not extend the limitation period, and no valid exclusion or extension was pleaded or granted. The application was therefore time barred and incompetent.

Citation
20090917 TZHC Dar es Salaam
Parties
Applicant: Johho Mbwana and 7 others; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: Tanzania Coastal Shipping Line Company (TACOSHILI)
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objections to Application for Leave to Apply for Prerogative Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed as time barred.
Legal Topics
Prerogative Orders, Certiorari, Mandamus, Limitation of Actions, Joinder of Parties
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Labour Law Civil Procedure Prerogative Orders Certiorari Mandamus Limitation of Actions Joinder of Parties

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johho Mbwana and 7 others

Applicant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Tanzania Coastal Shipping Line Company (TACOSHILI)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objections to Application for Leave to Apply for Prerogative Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to apply for prerogative orders against the Attorney General was time barred
  2. 2 Whether the application complied with mandatory joinder requirements under Section 18(1) of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to apply for prerogative orders against the Attorney General was filed more than ten years after the Industrial Court decision, far outside the six-month limitation period prescribed by law. The court order of 15/5/2002 did not extend the limitation period, and no valid exclusion or extension was pleaded or granted. The application was therefore time barred and incompetent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as time barred.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.