19880714 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The respondent failed to institute the appeal within the prescribed time and provided no explanation for the delay; therefore, the application to strike out the notice of appeal is granted under rule 84(a).
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19880714 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Applicant: M.A. Millian I. Sodo; Respondent: Mirage World Tours
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 14 July 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Notice of Appeal, Failure to Institute Appeal, 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
M.A. Millian I. Sodo
Applicant
Mirage World Tours
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent failed to institute the appeal within the prescribed time
- 2 Whether the notice of appeal should be struck out for failure to comply with Court of Appeal Rules
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent failed to institute the appeal within the prescribed time and provided no explanation for the delay; therefore, the application to strike out the notice of appeal is granted under rule 84(a).
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- Notice of appeal deemed withdrawn
- Respondent to bear all costs of the application
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
AT DAR ES &ALJ.1,J..i CIVIL kP?LIC.ATION NO, 3 CI:' 1990 BE'l,W-..::;,J:J i-1.A...~IIilLLIAN I. SCDO. • e • , • • • , • APPLIC.?J;T A..1D ·l1Rlfr;S WORLD rr0URS. • R.;}SPOirn:J7T (Applicatioa to stni.ct: Ol1."C l;otice of A ,eal from the Ihlling of t~e ITigh (Bahati,·J.) dated tpe 14th day of July, 1988 in Civil Case No4 131 of 1937 RULI N G I, \ XISANGA9 }J,,Ao i ·"-. .""'\ AJ l1r. ICaG11u.mb.,:gu, counsel for the respondent ~oi1~-~d~s'."'.:t~~·~;-,,,,•"?7~.... _ ~ tespondent has failed 'Go institute t~e appeal within. ,zil41:i1e~nmrte'a: "-~;--:· t ' \ by the Cou.rt of Appeal Rules~ and as n<\ ez:pl~.1ation ha;3_ been given ·or " is appai•ent for :w.ch failure~ the applfc~·tio1~ ·by ;~r. Kisusi is gra,"1tedo ·i;erms of rule 84 (a), deer.ied to have 1Jeen witl:d:raw'11o It is f·:.rt;_:eI' directed that -~:.:.e reopondent shall bear all t:.e costs of tl1is application. DNl1l!:D a-!i Di)..l.'1 i:;S SALAAJ'!i this 21st day of September, 1990. KI3JJ~GA !I I certify ~.;lla·~ -;;b.is is a true cop;,,r of the original. : J ··~ -~., (/~,, . I. j .· _.-~>- .... l ....._ ____ J ... (s. s. il'~IJ!,G:8 f i l ...