josephine emmanuel mlay vs emmanuel elifatao mlai others 2018 tzhc 2185 29 august 2018
- Citation
- josephine emmanuel mlay vs emmanuel elifatao mlai others 2018 tzhc 2185 29 august 2018
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 29 August 2018
- Posture
- Land Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal Order
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 29 August 2018
- Posture
- Land Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal Order
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant was granted an extension of time and filed the appeal within the permitted period. The dismissal of the appeal for being time barred was based on a failure to consider the extension order, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. The court reviewed and set aside the dismissal order and restored the appeal.
Court disposition
Application for review allowed; dismissal order set aside; appeal restored; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The decision dismissing Land Appeal No. 08/2015 for being time barred is reviewed and set aside.
- Land Appeal No. 08/2015 is restored for hearing and determination.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Josephine Emanuel Mlay w/o Emanuel Elifatao Mlai
AppellantEmanuel Elifatao Mlai
1st RespondentOmary Frank Mshana
2nd RespondentGlady Frank Mshana
3rd RespondentAnne Frank Mshana
4th RespondentM/S Majembe Auction Mart Ltd
5th Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Land Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the dismissal of the appeal as time barred
- 02
Whether the order for extension of time was properly considered
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that she was granted an extension of 14 days to file an appeal, complied with the order, but her appeal was dismissed as time barred without due consideration of the extension order, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Respondent
- No substantive respondent argument is recorded in the ruling.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 78(1)(a) and Order XLII Rules 1(1)(a) & (b) and 4(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code Cap. 33 R.E 2002
A court may review its decision if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant was granted an extension of time and filed the appeal within the permitted period. The dismissal of the appeal for being time barred was based on a failure to consider the extension order, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. The court reviewed and set aside the dismissal order and restored the appeal.
Court disposition
Application for review allowed; dismissal order set aside; appeal restored; no order as to costs.
- The decision dismissing Land Appeal No. 08/2015 for being time barred is reviewed and set aside.
- Land Appeal No. 08/2015 is restored for hearing and determination.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 29 August 2018
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 29 August 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY)
AT ARUSHA LAND REVIEW NO. 02 OF 2017 (Originating from the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Arusha District at Arusha in Land Case No. 2 o f 2011)
JOSEPHINE EMANUEL MLAY w/o EMANUEL ELIFATAO MLAI............................... APPELLANT
VERSUS EMANUEL ELIFATAO MLAI..................................1st RESPONDENT OMARY FRANK MSHANA....................................2nd RESPONDENT GLADY FRANK MSHANA.....................................3rd RESPONDENT ANNE FRANK MSHANA.......................................4™ RESPONDENT M/S MAJEMBE AUCTION MART LTD................... 5™ RESPONDENT RULING. S.M. MAGHIMBI. J: This application was lodged under the provisions of Section 78(l)(a) and Order XLII Rues 1(1) (a) & (b) and 4(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code Cap. 33 R.E 2002 (The CPC) and Section 51(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, 2002 as replaced by Section 20 of the Written Laws (Misc. Amendments) Act No. 2/2010. The applicant is seeking for review of the decision of this court in Land Appeal No. 07/2015 dated 13/05/2016 on the following grounds: , i 1. That, the Applicant through Misc. Land Case Application No.s 198/2014 High Court of Tanzania, Arusha on 5th March 2015 was i granted extension of time for 14 days to file an Appeal out of time by Madam Judge S. C. Moshi, (Copy of the order is hereby attached and marked EXB - A l) 2. That, the Applicant/Appellant complied with the Order of the High Court granted by Madam Judge S. C. Moshi, J. by filing in the High Court of Tanzania Arusha and Appeal No. 8 of 2015 on 16th March 2015 which was within the time given by the High Court of Tanzania, Arusha. (Copy of Petition
of Appeal is hereby attached and marked as EXB - A2) 3. That, on 7th June 2016 the presiding Judge Madam S. M. Maghimbi i dismissed the Appeal No. 8 of 2015 filed by the Applicant/Appellant in court for being time bared without due regard of the order for extension of time granted to the applicant/appellant by Madam Judge S. C. Moshi, J. ; (A copy of Judgment and Decree in Appeal of Madam S. M. Maghimbi is hereby attached as EXB - A3). j 4. That, there is an error apparent on the face of record in which the i Honourable Judge S. M. Maghimbi erred in law and fact for not making proper perusal and consideration of the court records to satisfy itself if the order for extension of time was granted bedsore dismissing the appeal. . The applicant hence prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to review its Judgment and decree in appeal and restore the dismissed Land Appeal No. 7/2015 in favour of the applicant. 2 On my part I need not be detained much by this application. The record is clear that on the 05/03/2015 vide Misc. Land Case Application No. 198/2014, the applicant was granted 14 days to lodge his appeal of which she subsequently lodged on the 17/03/2015 which was within the time granted by the court, since the evidence was missing on the records of the Land Appeal No. 08/2015, the decision of the court was reached on the wrong footing. Having the new evidence on record,
I find that I am obliged to review my decision made on the 07/06/2016 dismissing the appeal for being time barred. I hereby review the decision and set aside the dismissal order thereto. I further restore the Land Appeal No. 08/2015 which shall continue with the hearing and determination on a date that shall be subsequently scheduled by the court. Given the circumstances which led to the current application, I make no order as to costs. Dated at Arusha this 29th day of August, 2018 3
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.