manogoleku masanja vs ntumbi kashindye 2013 tzhc 2153 10 september 2013

manogoleku masanja vs ntumbi kashindye 2013 tzhc 2153 10 september 2013

The application was incompetent because the supporting affidavit was defective for not disclosing the name of the attesting officer, which is a fatal defect that cannot be cured by a rubber stamp or by amendment; therefore, the application must be struck out.

Citation
manogoleku masanja vs ntumbi kashindye 2013 tzhc 2153 10 september 2013
Parties
Applicant: Manogoleku Masanja; Respondent: Ntumbi Kashindye
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Affidavit Defects, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Affidavit Defects Preliminary Objection

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manogoleku Masanja

Applicant

Ntumbi Kashindye

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is competent given the defects in the supporting affidavit

Ratio Decidendi

The application was incompetent because the supporting affidavit was defective for not disclosing the name of the attesting officer, which is a fatal defect that cannot be cured by a rubber stamp or by amendment; therefore, the application must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is struck out with costs