moa general tranding colimited vs chrisak farms and others 2021 tzhclandd 212 31 may 2021

moa general tranding colimited vs chrisak farms and others 2021 tzhclandd 212 31 may 2021

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit as a Notice of Appeal filed in 2010 remains valid and unwithdrawn, and no court order has been made to strike it out or deem it withdrawn.

Citation
moa general tranding colimited vs chrisak farms and others 2021 tzhclandd 212 31 may 2021
Parties
Plaintiff: MOA General Trading Co. Limited; 1st Defendant: Chrisak Farms; 2nd Defendant: Dimitra Hatzis (Administrator of the Estate of Pierina Calaviras Deceased); 3rd Defendant: Esther Shauri Maro t/a MEM Auctioneers & General Brokers; 4th Defendant: Antonio Romano @ Mangoroma; 5th Defendant: Mangoroma Construction & Civil Engineering Company Limited
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Suit dismissed with costs for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Res Judicata, Notice of Appeal, Objection Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Jurisdiction Res Judicata Notice of Appeal Objection Proceedings

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

Parties

MOA General Trading Co. Limited

Plaintiff

Chrisak Farms

1st Defendant

Dimitra Hatzis (Administrator of the Estate of Pierina Calaviras Deceased)

2nd Defendant

Esther Shauri Maro t/a MEM Auctioneers & General Brokers

3rd Defendant

Antonio Romano @ Mangoroma

4th Defendant

Mangoroma Construction & Civil Engineering Company Limited

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction in light of a pending Notice of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the suit is res judicata

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit as a Notice of Appeal filed in 2010 remains valid and unwithdrawn, and no court order has been made to strike it out or deem it withdrawn.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed with costs for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs.