onesmo nangole vs dr stephen lemomo kiruswa others 2017 tzca 137 31 august 2017

onesmo nangole vs dr stephen lemomo kiruswa others 2017 tzca 137 31 august 2017

The appeal was struck out because the record of appeal was incomplete due to the omission of Exhibits P4 and P8, which are recognized as documentary evidence under the Evidence Act and Electronic Transactions Act. The appellant failed to remedy the omission within the prescribed period or seek leave as required by the Rules. The Court rejected the argument that the appeal's lifespan had expired, holding that the current appeal's timeline commenced with its own notice of appeal.

Citation
onesmo nangole vs dr stephen lemomo kiruswa others 2017 tzca 137 31 august 2017
Parties
Appellant: Onesmo Nangole; 1st Respondent: Dr. Steven Lemomo Kiruswa; 2nd Respondent/1st Necessary Party: The Hon Attorney General; 3rd Respondent/2nd Necessary Party: The Returning Officer for Longido Parliamentary Constituency
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Incompleteness of Record of Appeal, Electronic Evidence, Appeal Timelines, Jurisdiction, Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Election Law Civil Procedure Evidence Incompleteness of Record of Appeal Electronic Evidence Appeal Timelines Jurisdiction Documentary Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Onesmo Nangole

Appellant

Dr. Steven Lemomo Kiruswa

1st Respondent

The Hon Attorney General

2nd Respondent/1st Necessary Party

The Returning Officer for Longido Parliamentary Constituency

3rd Respondent/2nd Necessary Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the record of appeal is incomplete for non-inclusion of Exhibits P4 and P8
  2. 2 Whether the lifespan of the appeal has expired

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was struck out because the record of appeal was incomplete due to the omission of Exhibits P4 and P8, which are recognized as documentary evidence under the Evidence Act and Electronic Transactions Act. The appellant failed to remedy the omission within the prescribed period or seek leave as required by the Rules. The Court rejected the argument that the appeal's lifespan had expired, holding that the current appeal's timeline commenced with its own notice of appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • appeal struck out
  • costs awarded to 1st respondent and his two advocates