jowhara castor kiiza vs acer petrolium t limited 3 others 2022 tzhclandd 207 22 march 2022

jowhara castor kiiza vs acer petrolium t limited 3 others 2022 tzhclandd 207 22 march 2022

The only mistake requiring correction is the use of '2nd defendant' instead of 'defendant' in the corrected order; other highlighted words, though not part of the original order, do not alter the meaning or prejudice parties, but may be removed to match the original order as requested by the applicant.

Citation
jowhara castor kiiza vs acer petrolium t limited 3 others 2022 tzhclandd 207 22 march 2022
Parties
Applicant: Jowhara Castor Kiiza; 1st Respondent: Acer Petroleum (T) Limited; 2nd Respondent: Jaffer Hassanli Virji; 3rd Respondent: Fatuma Muzammil (Legal representative of the late Muzammil Sheikh Hassan); 4th Respondent: MAC Contractors Co. Limited
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
22 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application to Correct Clerical Errors in Court Order
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Correction of Clerical Errors, Drawn Order Correction, Procedural Defects
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Correction of Clerical Errors Drawn Order Correction Procedural Defects

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jowhara Castor Kiiza

Applicant

Acer Petroleum (T) Limited

1st Respondent

Jaffer Hassanli Virji

2nd Respondent

Fatuma Muzammil (Legal representative of the late Muzammil Sheikh Hassan)

3rd Respondent

MAC Contractors Co. Limited

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application to Correct Clerical Errors in Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the corrected order contains clerical errors requiring further correction
  2. 2 Whether the inclusion of certain words in the corrected order prejudiced the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The only mistake requiring correction is the use of '2nd defendant' instead of 'defendant' in the corrected order; other highlighted words, though not part of the original order, do not alter the meaning or prejudice parties, but may be removed to match the original order as requested by the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Corrected drawn order to be issued in accordance with the original order
  • No order as to costs