olmeshuki kisambu vs christopher naingola 2000 tzca 18 26 october 2000

olmeshuki kisambu vs christopher naingola 2000 tzca 18 26 october 2000

The applicant had a right of appeal with leave and failed to exhaust available appellate avenues due to his own inaction and delay, not because of judicial process. Ignorance of law and procedural missteps do not justify recourse to revisionary jurisdiction. The case does not meet the established principles for revision.

Citation
olmeshuki kisambu vs christopher naingola 2000 tzca 18 26 october 2000
Parties
Applicant: Olmeshuki Kisambu; Respondent: Christopher Naing'ola
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
26 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision / Determination of Whether to Exercise Revisionary Jurisdiction Suo Motu
Outcome
Application for revision refused
Legal Topics
Revision, Appellate Jurisdiction, Procedural Default
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Revision Appellate Jurisdiction Procedural Default

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olmeshuki Kisambu

Applicant

Christopher Naing'ola

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision / Determination of Whether to Exercise Revisionary Jurisdiction Suo Motu

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should exercise its revisionary powers suo motu over the High Court decision
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's right of appeal was blocked by judicial process or lost due to his own fault

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had a right of appeal with leave and failed to exhaust available appellate avenues due to his own inaction and delay, not because of judicial process. Ignorance of law and procedural missteps do not justify recourse to revisionary jurisdiction. The case does not meet the established principles for revision.

Court Disposition

Application for revision refused

Orders

  • No order as to costs