khamis ally khamis vs saidi a mbaga and another 2021 tzhclandd 440 30 august 2021

khamis ally khamis vs saidi a mbaga and another 2021 tzhclandd 440 30 august 2021

The court found that the failure to substitute the deceased plaintiff with his administratrix and the discrepancy in dates between the judgment and decree were errors apparent on the face of the record, justifying review and correction. The remaining grounds raised by the applicant were not proper for review as they related to matters for appeal.

Citation
khamis ally khamis vs saidi a mbaga and another 2021 tzhclandd 440 30 august 2021
Parties
Applicant: Khamis Ally Khamis; 1st Respondent: Saidi A. Mbaga; 2nd Respondent: Veronica Kibwana (as the Administratrix of the Estate of the late Jacob Kibwana)
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
application partly allowed
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on the Face of Record, Substitution of Parties, Decree and Judgment Date Correction
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Review of Judgment Error Apparent on the Face of Record Substitution of Parties Decree and Judgment Date Correction

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khamis Ally Khamis

Applicant

Saidi A. Mbaga

1st Respondent

Veronica Kibwana (as the Administratrix of the Estate of the late Jacob Kibwana)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment and decree in Land Case No. 67 of 2004 contained errors apparent on the face of the record justifying review
  2. 2 Whether the failure to substitute the deceased plaintiff with his administratrix and the discrepancy in dates between the judgment and decree are fatal errors
  3. 3 Whether other grounds raised by the applicant are proper grounds for review

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the failure to substitute the deceased plaintiff with his administratrix and the discrepancy in dates between the judgment and decree were errors apparent on the face of the record, justifying review and correction. The remaining grounds raised by the applicant were not proper for review as they related to matters for appeal.

Court Disposition

application partly allowed

Orders

  • The judgment in Land Case No. 67 of 2004 is corrected by deleting the name of Jacob Kibwana as 2nd plaintiff and substituting Veronica Kibwana as administratrix of the estate of the late Jacob Kibwana.
  • The date on the decree is corrected to match the date of the judgment, 27th May, 2014.