john p massawe vs abdullatiff mohamed hood others 2018 tzhclandd 423 20 july 2018

john p massawe vs abdullatiff mohamed hood others 2018 tzhclandd 423 20 july 2018

The application is incompetent for failure to cite the correct sub-rule of Order XXXVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is a fundamental error that deprives the court of jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Citation
john p massawe vs abdullatiff mohamed hood others 2018 tzhclandd 423 20 july 2018
Parties
Applicant: John P. Massawe; 1st Respondent: Abdullatiff Mohamed Hood; 2nd Respondent: Feisal Mohamed Hood; 3rd Respondent: Morogoro Municipal Council
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application struck out
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunction, Jurisdiction, Preliminary Objection, Citation of Legal Provisions
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Temporary Injunction Jurisdiction Preliminary Objection Citation of Legal Provisions

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John P. Massawe

Applicant

Abdullatiff Mohamed Hood

1st Respondent

Feisal Mohamed Hood

2nd Respondent

Morogoro Municipal Council

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is incompetent for failure to cite the correct legal provision
  2. 2 Whether the supporting affidavit is incurably defective

Ratio Decidendi

The application is incompetent for failure to cite the correct sub-rule of Order XXXVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is a fundamental error that deprives the court of jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Application struck out

Orders

  • Application struck out for incompetence
  • 1st and 2nd Respondents awarded costs