pascal thomas lelo vs akiba commercial bank plc 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 17069 24 october 2023

pascal thomas lelo vs akiba commercial bank plc 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 17069 24 october 2023

The appeal fails because the trial tribunal correctly applied the law regarding costs, non-appearance, and the role of assessors in interlocutory applications; the applicant failed to provide required proof for adjournment, and the chairman was not required to sit with assessors for restoration applications.

Citation
pascal thomas lelo vs akiba commercial bank plc 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 17069 24 october 2023
Parties
Appellant: Pascal Thomas Lelo; 1st Respondent: Akiba Commercial Bank PLC; 2nd Respondent: Best Group Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Champion Auction Mart
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Restoration of Dismissed Suit, Award of Costs, Non Appearance, Role of Assessors, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
English

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pascal Thomas Lelo

Appellant

Akiba Commercial Bank PLC

1st Respondent

Best Group Ltd

2nd Respondent

Champion Auction Mart

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the trial tribunal erred in dismissing the application with costs when heard ex parte
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to consider absence of objection and request for adjournment
  3. 3 Whether non-appearance for one day by an advocate justified dismissal under the applicable regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because the trial tribunal correctly applied the law regarding costs, non-appearance, and the role of assessors in interlocutory applications; the applicant failed to provide required proof for adjournment, and the chairman was not required to sit with assessors for restoration applications.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed with costs