modest joseph temba vs b akari selemani simba chiku zuberisalum another 2022 tzca 498 10 august 2022

modest joseph temba vs b akari selemani simba chiku zuberisalum another 2022 tzca 498 10 august 2022

The applicant's right of appeal was not blocked by judicial process; he prematurely abandoned the appeal route and failed to exhaust available remedies such as review or correction before seeking revision. Therefore, the application for revision was misconceived and incompetent.

Citation
modest joseph temba vs b akari selemani simba chiku zuberisalum another 2022 tzca 498 10 august 2022
Parties
Applicant: Modest Joseph Temba; 1st Respondent: Bakari Selemani Simba and Chiku Zuberi Salum (as joint administrators of the Estate of the Deceased Asha Kongoro); 2nd Respondent: Salum Rahim Abdullah Amrene
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Revision Jurisdiction, Right of Appeal, Abatement of Suit, Amendment of Pleadings, Review and Correction of Judgments
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Revision Jurisdiction Right of Appeal Abatement of Suit Amendment of Pleadings Review and Correction of Judgments

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Modest Joseph Temba

Applicant

Bakari Selemani Simba and Chiku Zuberi Salum (as joint administrators of the Estate of the Deceased Asha Kongoro)

1st Respondent

Salum Rahim Abdullah Amrene

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's right of appeal was blocked by judicial process justifying revision
  2. 2 Whether the application for revision was properly before the Court

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's right of appeal was not blocked by judicial process; he prematurely abandoned the appeal route and failed to exhaust available remedies such as review or correction before seeking revision. Therefore, the application for revision was misconceived and incompetent.

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is sustained.
  • The application for revision is struck out with costs.