mwaka musa vs simon obeid simchimba 1995 tzca 56 6 november 1995

mwaka musa vs simon obeid simchimba 1995 tzca 56 6 november 1995

The High Court erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction as the circumstances under section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Code were not met, and the Law of Limitation Act, 1971 does not bar applications for appointment of administrators in probate matters.

Citation
mwaka musa vs simon obeid simchimba 1995 tzca 56 6 november 1995
Parties
Appellant: Msstaea Musa; Respondent: Simon Obeid Simchimba
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
6 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Revisional Jurisdiction, Limitation Period, Appointment of Administrator
Source Language
English
Probate Civil Procedure Revisional Jurisdiction Limitation Period Appointment of Administrator

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Msstaea Musa

Appellant

Simon Obeid Simchimba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court properly exercised revisional jurisdiction under section 43(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1984 and section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code
  2. 2 Whether the Law of Limitation Act, 1971 applies to applications for appointment of administrators in probate matters

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction as the circumstances under section 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Code were not met, and the Law of Limitation Act, 1971 does not bar applications for appointment of administrators in probate matters.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court decision in Civil Revision No. 5 of 1989 set aside
  • Resident Magistrate Court's decision in Probate Cause No. 62 of 1989 restored