kulwa saimon vs matatizo mpale administrator of the estates of the late laiton mpale another 2022 tzhc 12485 31 august 2022

kulwa saimon vs matatizo mpale administrator of the estates of the late laiton mpale another 2022 tzhc 12485 31 august 2022

Failure to tender letters of administration in evidence meant the 1st respondent did not prove locus standi as administrator; annexures to pleadings are not evidence; thus, the suit was incompetent and should have been struck out.

Citation
kulwa saimon vs matatizo mpale administrator of the estates of the late laiton mpale another 2022 tzhc 12485 31 august 2022
Parties
Appellant: Kulwa Saimon; 1st Respondent: Matatizo Mpale (Administrator of Estate of the late Laiton Mpale); 2nd Respondent: Athanas Mpale
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; proceedings and judgment of the tribunal quashed and set aside.
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Proof of Representative Capacity, Admissibility of Evidence, Pleadings
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Proof of Representative Capacity Admissibility of Evidence Pleadings

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kulwa Saimon

Appellant

Matatizo Mpale (Administrator of Estate of the late Laiton Mpale)

1st Respondent

Athanas Mpale

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to tender letters of administration in evidence rendered the suit incompetent
  2. 2 Whether the 1st respondent had locus standi to sue as administrator of the estate
  3. 3 Whether annexures to pleadings constitute evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to tender letters of administration in evidence meant the 1st respondent did not prove locus standi as administrator; annexures to pleadings are not evidence; thus, the suit was incompetent and should have been struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; proceedings and judgment of the tribunal quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • Proceedings and judgment in Application No. 139 of 2020 quashed and set aside.
  • Applicant at liberty to refile the application before the tribunal upon compliance with legal requirements.