20090504 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The District Court acted properly in setting aside its ex parte default judgment after realizing it had erred by departing from its previous order allowing the defendant to file a Written Statement of Defence out of time. The suit should proceed inter-partes from where it ended.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20090504 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Applicant: Lazaro Urassa; Respondent: Director Saddiq
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 4 May 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Application (review) / Ruling on Application for Review of District Court Order
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; District Court's ruling upheld
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Default Judgment, Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders
- 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
Lazaro Urassa
Applicant
Director Saddiq
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Application (review) / Ruling on Application for Review of District Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the District Court erred in setting aside its ex parte default judgment and ordering inter-partes hearing
- 2 Whether the court was functus officio after entering default judgment and signing execution form
Ratio Decidendi
The District Court acted properly in setting aside its ex parte default judgment after realizing it had erred by departing from its previous order allowing the defendant to file a Written Statement of Defence out of time. The suit should proceed inter-partes from where it ended.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; District Court's ruling upheld
Orders
- Suit to proceed in the District Court from where it ended
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
.I(,--•- . ~ l 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES .SALAAM ,-., ✓ ; ' ; ·.. Ji{;;:; i';~i•f'''' . • .. ·r.- ifi:,·&'?ft'h.~ ·. 7 (Originating from Mo~ogoro D/c:Jt•ir~;# iVl:l.~c-. t.iv.: Application No. 3/2006) LAZARO URASSA APPLICANT DIRECTOR SADDIQ,qt,J.~ •~!-_. ::;.i3._!..,l,,■••··"· RESPONDENT Date of Last Order Date of Ruling RU.LING SHANGWA, J. This is an application for. re;1{i~o.~- ,6¥/tne ~ ~ ~,.tl°"' ~• J ., ,._ ~uling _of the District Court of . '' ' , _.,, .l-'"'r,, 2 24 of 2005. It is supported by affidavit of the Applicant Lazaro Urassa. In its Ruling, d :'/. ki 1 tS..,·~ !,:: ~ . " •l • ,.., the District Court of Morogoro set aside its exparte order/ judgment delivered on th 30 March, 2006 and ordered that tffeffr\atlb;rlk'hoLlld proceed inter -partes. Upon .,...,.,. ,. ·,. :·: . .;,h -~ so ordering, the plaintiff was or-d~~i~I~~~~l~(e a_·reply to the Written Statement of Defence before commencing to hear thE; :s~.i~. inter-partes. The said Ruling was :,_. ··/ :)t}.fF~_-:··=; .•,:.•_··..:·:·-,. made following an application by coun~e! fqr_the defendant Mr. Kilule to review , . : . .-r-rt~}/'._;..:·/' th the District Court's order for def~Ui{]Gliment\~hich was entered exparte on 30 March, 2006. . . ~ . ; .' . ._.: In his application for revie"'." ot,tp~!-~-P8>)!.~;m~ntiol':1ed order, learned counsel 1·: l· ' ·..:.,i i) ::J· ~~ .. '->:~f :) I for the defendant Mr. Kilule ar~N:rnB.tt~tf.R'.~'JD.istrict Court erred in law and facts -~-, ~·-~../}/:·~ ~:.1~:... 1:_:j-· in giving default judgment without fram;l7_g.JM ~es. Mr. Mzonge, PDM agreed with 1 'L-~P:t~~:'._.~.; :~:>; ';·i . :i} ·-~~-. ....' ),; ' him for the following reason: That having permitted the defendant to file his Written Statement of Defence out of time and havirg,;qr.<fe:17f,d ·. ·.· the plaintiff to file a reply thereto, (. ·.,' the Court was functus officio to dep_art,Jrom its previous order by entering a ~ ~ t f b.f'tr<.i !Q)!1 V!=t" j '-; ~ -~: .'.,! .• ,·1.tJ : it :.:!c~t_,_ ()r·t:· . default judgment. ,... ,., . 'SSL r• t·-~ ~~~il: _\.:- --./ .'.>. The Applicant in this case argu~~ that .having entered the default judgment ., and having signed the form for executiohwJ 1the, said judgment in which it was : ,n .--: .tirtfC! ':re-d-f' 1 '• ' •'" ' I '•~,! .~ .7 •; ordered that the Respondent should- pay:;hl:i:n11, a total sum of Tshs. 2,532,000/= :::.,c;ieoq/f frr , · ; which he was claiming as unpaicl'f¼1'g:e?i~t1'· af~~ars .from January, 1998 to November, 2004, it was unlawf~tN~J~\H~flltSft to go back to its previous order •·r/~t\}t'.'i··. ··;~ ·-- .. _.,..;:: l and recondition the suit for hearing inter panle,s. ( In my view, I do not agree with the Applicant that having acted as above th mentioned, it was unlawful for the District C~;>Urt to set aside its order dated 30 -· ,:t"t'l•:__.j.11,,; ·. . \•""• ,..,,.,.,... , .. ,.,,,[.( 1 March, 2006. The Court did so afte,r rea~lis'i-~f that it was wrong for it to depart ' I , . •·; l'.ill':I'.) -~ , -leur•"t F··,. · , from its previous order of allowing 4hl,,0eb~:'!l~~nt t.o file his Written Statement of \! ..! .• · · .\I 8 ,'./·:"); -,1 l'!l . , , Defence out of time and chang~7§tlJf{;~~&i;tP~',.by entering a default judgment in ·'· •-::/~·~\·:_'.~ .:i -·•~-f favour of the plaintiff / Applicant. --w~ ~},-J~'&~s~is_trict Court did in reviewing its 1 order dated 30th March, 2006 was q~'it~: ~rop~r. I do uphold its Ruling delivered : .: , i :", ·:: \ f ~"· 1 -~-' .[ :: : •· !"_i.,- l !~ ~ _ on ih January, 2007 by Mzonge1 -:,PN Jn Labour Case No. 24 of 2005 and order ' ,, ', I_ 't.• ,;\ that the suit between the partie~: sh~~)d ~cfc'eed in the same court from where it ended. I make no order as to costs._, . ~'~,.v,t-, ,, . 1as qt.lite prope, ,- •,/ I'•':\ 1,.f. l i~•:c-,•· :·; .,:.:• '•.:• i 000 : 't }ti!-:.',~•;.'\~~ •,,i,n . ,. 1ir~·1J~t~~L ~:"'; '.:·,~':;,._4:(';J_::.-· ·i.:.·<~ ! ,(i:'1:(}?}!.;i:~ :~~~::?t \' .,JUD.GJ: 2009 in the presence of the i . l :;,.i~'.-~Ii~:1r Applicant. ..·: ·,'.:•.t· !.:. . : , ~:, ,' . ~ ;\~J'.J;}J,rf ·'i,. ,\-,' ·': ::-. , l. 'JUDGE. ' ·,r4/~)~@o~