20051101 TZHC Moshi2

20051101 TZHC Moshi2

The court held that raising a preliminary objection against another preliminary objection is not permitted. Furthermore, since the applicant had already filed a notice of appeal, even if out of time, the matter was considered to be before the Court of Appeal, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for extension of time and leave to appeal.

Citation
20051101 TZHC Moshi2
Parties
Applicant: Peter Tabu Mwisawe; Respondent: Not named (Respondent)
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application (p.c) / Ruling on Preliminary Objections Regarding Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction; preliminary objection by respondent upheld.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Preliminary Objections, Affidavit Requirements
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

Peter Tabu Mwisawe

Applicant

Not named (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application (p.c) / Ruling on Preliminary Objections Regarding Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether a preliminary objection can be raised against another preliminary objection
  2. 2 Whether the application is properly before the court given a notice of appeal was already filed

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that raising a preliminary objection against another preliminary objection is not permitted. Furthermore, since the applicant had already filed a notice of appeal, even if out of time, the matter was considered to be before the Court of Appeal, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for extension of time and leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction; preliminary objection by respondent upheld.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection by respondent upheld
  • Application dismissed as not competent before the court