john kashekya vs attorney general 2019 tzca 324 2 october 2019

john kashekya vs attorney general 2019 tzca 324 2 october 2019

Non-consideration of exhibit P15 does not constitute a manifest error apparent on the face of the record; the application is an appeal in disguise and does not meet the grounds for review under Rule 66(1).

Source-derived case information.

Citation
john kashekya vs attorney general 2019 tzca 324 2 october 2019
Parties
Applicant: John Kashekya; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Review Jurisdiction, Manifest Error, Consent for Mineral Rights, Surface Rights Holder
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Mining Law Review Jurisdiction Manifest Error Consent for Mineral Rights Surface Rights Holder

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kashekya

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-consideration of exhibit P15 constitutes a manifest error on the face of the record justifying review
  2. 2 Whether the application amounts to an appeal in disguise

Ratio Decidendi

Non-consideration of exhibit P15 does not constitute a manifest error apparent on the face of the record; the application is an appeal in disguise and does not meet the grounds for review under Rule 66(1).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No costs awarded