Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TANZLII

mohamed iqbal haji another vs john binder 2023 tzhclandd 16815 22 august 2023

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Applicants' counsel was present at court but did not hear the case being called; this constitutes sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal order and restore the application.

Court disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Dismissal order dated 17 November 2022 set aside
  • Misc Land Application No. 732 of 2022 restored
  • No order as to costs

02

Material facts

Parties

Mohamed Iqbal Haji

Applicant Counsel: Yusta Peter Kibuga

Abbasi Mohamed Juma

Applicant Counsel: Yusta Peter Kibuga

John Binder

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal and Restore Previous Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether sufficient cause was shown to set aside the dismissal order and restore Misc. Land Application No. 732 of 2022

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicants argued that their advocate was present at court but did not hear the matter being called, and there was no negligence.
Respondent
Respondent was absent and did not file any arguments.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order IX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 R: E 2019

    Court may set aside dismissal for non-appearance if sufficient cause is shown.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Applicants' counsel was present at court but did not hear the case being called; this constitutes sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal order and restore the application.

Court disposition

Application granted

  • Dismissal order dated 17 November 2022 set aside
  • Misc Land Application No. 732 of 2022 restored
  • No order as to costs

Source and reliance status

TANZLII · 22 August 2023

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TANZLII

Judgment· 22 August 2023

mohamed iqbal haji another vs john binder 2023 tzhclandd 16815 22 august 2023

THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)

AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION No. 213 OF 2023 (Originating from the Order of the High Court of Tanzania Land Division (Dar es Salaam) in Misc. Land Application no. 732 of 2022) MOHAMED IQBAL HAJI......... .................................................1st APPLICANT ABBASI MOHAMED JUMA.............................. .............. 2nd APPLICANT

VERSUS JOHN BINDER.............. ............................................................. RESPONDENT

RULING Date of last 0rder:31/07/2023 Date of Ruling: 22/08/2023 K. D. MHINA, J. By a chamber summons taken under Order IX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 R: E 2019 (''the CPC"), the applicants, Mohamed Iqbal Haji and Abbasi Mohamed Juma, instituted this application against the respondent, John Binder. The applicants, inter-alia, are seeking the following orders: - i. This Court may be pleased to set aside the dismissal order in Misc. Land Application No. 732 of2022 between Mohamed Iqbal Haji and Abbasi Mohamed Juma versus John Binder. i //' This Court be pleased to grant any other order (s) that it considersjust and convenient to grant. The grounds for the application were expounded in the affidavit, which Yusta Peter Kibuga, the advocate of the applicant, swore in support of the application. The grounds are found in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit that on the material date, together with another advocate named Caritas Malawa from Leo Attorneys, she was at the Advocates waiting room waiting for the matter to be called. At 09:15 hours, she approached the Court Clerk, who informed them that the matter was already dismissed for non-appearance. She also averred that they did not hear when the court clerk called the case. Therefore, there was no negligence. The hearing proceeded by way of written submissions. Ms. Yusta Kibuga represented the applicants while the

respondent was absent. The efforts to secure his attendance proved futile even after substituted way by way of publication in Mwananchi newspaper dated 27 July 2023. Therefore, the application proceeded ex parte against the respondent. 2 In supporting the application, Ms. Kibuga briefly submitted that in paragraphs 4,5 and 6 of the affidavit, the applicants had shown sufficient reasons for this Court to set aside the dismissal order. That on the date of dismissal, the advocate for the applicants was present but did not hear when the matter was called on for hearing. Therefore, she submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the applicants. Hence, she prayed for the prayers to be granted. Having heard the counsel for the applicants and scrutinize the affidavit, the main issue for determination is whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for this court to grant his application for restoration. This should not detain me long because, having gone through the applicants' affidavit, I find it quite clear that the counsel demonstrated that she was at the Court on the material date, but she did not hear when the case was called on for hearing. Further, in the circumstances of this matter where there is an affidavit of advocate Caritas Malawa whom she was mentioned in the applicants' affidavit that she was together with the applicants' affidavit, the

applicants deserved to be granted the prayers they sought. That affidavit also proved 3 that the counsel was at the court but did not hear when the case was called on for hearing. Also, the facts indicated that there was no negligence on the part of the respondents because the counsel was at court at the time scheduled for the hearing but, unfortunately, did not hear when the matter was called. In such circumstances, the applicants deserve to be granted the orders they sought in the chamber summons. Consequently, I grant the application by setting aside the dismissal order dated 17 November 2022 and ordering the restoration of Misc Land Application No. 732 of 2022. No order as /o costs. I order accordingly. K, D. NA

JUDGE 22/08/2023 4

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Order IX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 R: E 2019

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.