nathan alex vs valerian crispin mlay another 2018 tzhc 114 22 february 2018

nathan alex vs valerian crispin mlay another 2018 tzhc 114 22 february 2018

The application was properly presented and supported by affidavit, procedural omissions did not cause injustice, issues were apparent from pleadings and evidence, documentary evidence annexed to affidavits formed part of the evidence, and the appellant's conduct constituted grave professional misconduct warranting suspension. The punishment imposed was commensurate with the misconduct.

Citation
nathan alex vs valerian crispin mlay another 2018 tzhc 114 22 february 2018
Parties
Appellant: Nathan Alex; First Respondent: Valerian Crispin Mlay; Second Respondent: The Advocates Committee
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
22 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Advocate Misconduct, Procedural Irregularity, Natural Justice, Evidentiary Standards, Sentencing in Disciplinary Proceedings
Source Language
English
Professional Discipline Legal Ethics Advocate Misconduct Procedural Irregularity Natural Justice Evidentiary Standards Sentencing in Disciplinary 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathan Alex

Appellant

Valerian Crispin Mlay

First Respondent

The Advocates Committee

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Advocates Committee was properly moved under Rule 3 of the Advocates (Disciplinary) Rules GN No. 135 of 1955
  2. 2 Whether failure to frame issues at the commencement of hearing violated procedural requirements and natural justice
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence was properly admitted and considered

Ratio Decidendi

The application was properly presented and supported by affidavit, procedural omissions did not cause injustice, issues were apparent from pleadings and evidence, documentary evidence annexed to affidavits formed part of the evidence, and the appellant's conduct constituted grave professional misconduct warranting suspension. The punishment imposed was commensurate with the misconduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Suspension of appellant from practice for five years confirmed.
  • Appellant to pay costs of the appeal.