19730303 TZHC Arusha
The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of inability to pay court fees; ownership of assets indicates capacity to pay, so exemption is not warranted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19730303 TZHC Arusha
- Parties
- Applicant: Nemessa Mfonanga; Respondent: Juli s/o August
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 3 March 1973
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Without Payment of Court Fees
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Court Fees, Leave to Appeal, Pauper Proceedings
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nemessa Mfonanga
Applicant
Juli s/o August
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Without Payment of Court Fees
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to exemption from payment of court fees for the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of inability to pay court fees; ownership of assets indicates capacity to pay, so exemption is not warranted.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- application for leave to appeal without payment of court fees is dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
S IN THE HIGH CL)TJRT DF TANZMIA AT ARIJSHA (PC) CIVIL PEAL NO. 15 OF 1973 (From original Civil Appeal To. 13 of 1972 of the District Court of Hombo District at Moshi.) NEMESSAMFONANGA ..................,..APPELLANT (Original Respondent) versus juii s/o AUGUST ...................RESPOI'DENT (Original Appellt) JUDGMEI'1 T Bratnole, J. This is an aplication for leave to aipeal without the payment of court fees. The ap1icant has not disclosed what his income is. He complains that he has a sick wife and that he has to maintain his children and pay school fees. He has a acre coffee shawba. The matter wos investigated by the District Magistrate where it was pointed out that the appellant has two coffee shacnbas, some cattle and goats. Indeed the civil action arose out of some incident with his cattle. The District Ma g istrate found that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the appellant was incapable of meeting the court fees. I would imagine that in the majority of cases a litigant has to make some sacrifice in contesting a suit but having to make such sacrifice is not enough to warrant an exemption from the court fees. I see no reason to disagree with the District Magistrate and dismiss the app1ication. , AIiUSHA 3/3/7 3 (c. E. LE) J UDC B E /cwm