19910705 TZHC Dar es Salaam
Leave to appeal is granted because there is material that should go before the Court of Appeal for decision, and fairness dictates that defendants be able to challenge the order permitting withdrawal with liberty to re-apply and the refusal of their cross-prayers.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19910705 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Kagera Saw Mill and Two Others; Defendant: Baptist Mission of East Africa & Brothers
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 5 July 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Withdrawal of Suit, Security for Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kagera Saw Mill and Two Others
Appellant
Baptist Mission of East Africa & Brothers
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the order permitting withdrawal of suit with liberty to re-apply
- 2 Whether refusal of defendants' cross-prayers, including security for costs, was correct
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal is granted because there is material that should go before the Court of Appeal for decision, and fairness dictates that defendants be able to challenge the order permitting withdrawal with liberty to re-apply and the refusal of their cross-prayers.
Court Disposition
leave to appeal granted
Orders
- leave to appeal granted as prayed
- costs to the applicant/defendant in any event
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TA~Uilil AT D1:.R ES Sli.liu'I.M CIVIL CASE I\Do 22'1 OF 1988 KAGER.£!. SAW MikJ Dl1D & TWO OTHERSoooooooo.APPELLAI1[1 VERSUS BAPrIST MISSION OF EilST AFRICA & BROTHERS •••• DEFENDANT RULING This is an application for leave to appeal to the court of Aypeal ~gainst the order of this Court given on 26/11/900 The or for granted the application b;y- Mr~ Patel learned counsel for the i)laintiffs to withdraw the case with liberty to re-applyo Mr Kisana, learned counsel for the defendar1ts 7 had his application dismissedo One such application was for an order for security • fo:::- costs., Reading t}¥"ough the proceedings of this case I find i:;n.1::1:c there is ma·ceriaJ. wnicn snouiu gu ue:r"o:ce -c:ne Court 01· Appeal for decision., Since leave to withdraw t:'le suit w:Lth liberty to • apply was granted, it is only fair that the defenc':.ants he able to challenge such o:r:der before the Couc·i:; oI° li.ppealo Furthermor·e since the cross - prayers of the defendants ,.,ere ;i • . t refused, again'the court of Appeal should determir.e whether the ,, refusal was correct. I wo'uld tlaerefore grant leave as prayedo Costs to the a!plicant/defendant in an~" evento I , Ao BflHf-1.TI, J 5/7/91 Delivered to Mr Kesaria Mr )?atel absent_0 Ao Bl\.HATI,J 5/7/91 ., . ~ ; .. )"' I CERTIFY THAT; IT IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIG!Nli.L.,