rajab a rajab vs hamidi m tuli another 2006 tzhc 72 27 july 2006

rajab a rajab vs hamidi m tuli another 2006 tzhc 72 27 july 2006

The Law of Limitation Act, 1971 does not apply to appeals from Primary Courts to District Courts because section 20(3) of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1984 prescribes its own limitation period and shows a contrary intention. Therefore, the period for obtaining a copy of judgment is not excluded, and the appeal was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
rajab a rajab vs hamidi m tuli another 2006 tzhc 72 27 july 2006
Parties
Appellant: Rajab A. Rajab; Respondent: Hamidi M. Tuli & Another
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
PC Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with variation
Legal Topics
Limitation of Appeals, Computation of Limitation Periods, Appeals From Primary Court, Application of Law of Limitation Act, Extension of Time
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Succession Law Limitation of Appeals Computation of Limitation Periods Appeals From Primary Court Application of Law of Limitation Act Extension of Time

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajab A. Rajab

Appellant

Hamidi M. Tuli & Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

PC Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal to the District Court was time-barred under section 20(3) of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1984
  2. 2 Whether section 19(2) of the Law of Limitation Act, 1971 applies to exclude the period for obtaining a copy of judgment in appeals from Primary Courts
  3. 3 Whether the District Court erred in declaring the appeal void ab initio instead of incompetent

Ratio Decidendi

The Law of Limitation Act, 1971 does not apply to appeals from Primary Courts to District Courts because section 20(3) of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1984 prescribes its own limitation period and shows a contrary intention. Therefore, the period for obtaining a copy of judgment is not excluded, and the appeal was filed out of time. The District Court erred in declaring the appeal void ab initio; it should have been struck out as incompetent, with the appellant retaining the right to seek extension of time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with variation

Orders

  • District Court's decision varied to declare the appeal incompetent and struck out, not void ab initio
  • Appeal dismissed with costs