jowhara castor kiiza vs accer petroleum t limited others 2020 tzhclandd 3923 22 december 2020

jowhara castor kiiza vs accer petroleum t limited others 2020 tzhclandd 3923 22 december 2020

The court held that the mistakes identified were merely clerical errors and accidental slips covered under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The corrections did not alter the court's decision or prejudice the rights of the respondents. Therefore, the application for correction was granted.

Citation
jowhara castor kiiza vs accer petroleum t limited others 2020 tzhclandd 3923 22 december 2020
Parties
Applicant: Jowhara Castor Kiiza; 1st Respondent: Accer Petroleum (T) Limited; 2nd Respondent: Jaffer Hassanali Virji; 3rd Respondent: Fatuma Muzammil (Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Muzammil Sheikh Hassan); 4th Respondent: MAC Contractors Co. Limited
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
22 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Correction of Clerical Mistakes
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Correction of Clerical Errors, Accidental Slips or Omissions, Section 96 Civil Procedure Code, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Correction of Clerical Errors Accidental Slips or Omissions Section 96 Civil Procedure Code Abuse of Court Process

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

Jowhara Castor Kiiza

Applicant

Accer Petroleum (T) Limited

1st Respondent

Jaffer Hassanali Virji

2nd Respondent

Fatuma Muzammil (Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Muzammil Sheikh Hassan)

3rd Respondent

MAC Contractors Co. Limited

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Correction of Clerical Mistakes

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mistakes identified in the ruling and drawn order are clerical errors or errors on the face of the record requiring review
  2. 2 Whether the application for correction is maintainable under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the mistakes identified were merely clerical errors and accidental slips covered under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The corrections did not alter the court's decision or prejudice the rights of the respondents. Therefore, the application for correction was granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Clerical mistakes and accidental slips in the ruling and drawn order are corrected as prayed.
  • Corrected ruling and drawn order to be issued.