melchisedeck sangalili lutema vs the tanzania federation of co operatives limited another 2022 tzhclandd 12509 28 october 2022

melchisedeck sangalili lutema vs the tanzania federation of co operatives limited another 2022 tzhclandd 12509 28 october 2022

The court found that the respondents' affidavits were contradictory and lacked proof of handover or seizure of documents. The 2nd respondent, having been commissioned to conduct the transfer, must be in possession of or know the whereabouts of the requested documents. The 1st respondent failed to prove government seizure. Therefore, the respondents are ordered to produce the documents as requested.

Citation
melchisedeck sangalili lutema vs the tanzania federation of co operatives limited another 2022 tzhclandd 12509 28 october 2022
Parties
Applicant: Melchisedek Sangalali Lutema; 1st Respondent: Tanzania Federation of Cooperatives Limited; 2nd Respondent: Impactplan Associates
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Discovery and Production of Documents
Outcome
Application granted with costs
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Production of Evidence, Transfer of Land Ownership
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Discovery of Documents Production of Evidence Transfer of Land Ownership

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melchisedek Sangalali Lutema

Applicant

Tanzania Federation of Cooperatives Limited

1st Respondent

Impactplan Associates

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Discovery and Production of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in possession or have knowledge of the whereabouts of documents requested by the applicant for discovery and production under Order XI Rules 10 and 12 of the Civil Procedure Code

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' affidavits were contradictory and lacked proof of handover or seizure of documents. The 2nd respondent, having been commissioned to conduct the transfer, must be in possession of or know the whereabouts of the requested documents. The 1st respondent failed to prove government seizure. Therefore, the respondents are ordered to produce the documents as requested.

Court Disposition

Application granted with costs

Orders

  • Principal Officers of the 1st and 2nd respondents to produce in court, under oath, true and correct copies of all documents listed in the Chamber Summons before the first hearing date of Land Case No. 33 of 2020.