mwanaisha mohamed ngochele vs mohamed salum others 2012 tzhclandd 1 11 december 2012

mwanaisha mohamed ngochele vs mohamed salum others 2012 tzhclandd 1 11 december 2012

The application for review was filed within the prescribed limitation period after excluding the time spent obtaining a copy of the ruling. However, the grounds advanced for review do not meet the legal threshold for review, as they do not disclose any manifest error on the face of the record, fraud, or deprivation of the right to be heard. The proper remedy for the applicant was to seek re-admission of the appeal under Order XXXIX Rule 19, not review. Therefore, the application is incompetent and is struck out with costs.

Citation
mwanaisha mohamed ngochele vs mohamed salum others 2012 tzhclandd 1 11 december 2012
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Mwanaisha Mohamed Ngochele; 1st Respondent: Mohamed Salum; 2nd Respondent: Lutufi Mwakajuka; 3rd Respondent: Hadija Omary
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
11 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Land Case Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objections in Application for Review
Outcome
Application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Review of Court Decisions, Limitation of Actions, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Re Admission of Appeals
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Review of Court Decisions Limitation of Actions Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Re Admission of Appeals

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mwanaisha Mohamed Ngochele

Applicant/appellant

Mohamed Salum

1st Respondent

Lutufi Mwakajuka

2nd Respondent

Hadija Omary

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Case Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objections in Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for review was time-barred
  2. 2 Whether the ruling dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution is subject to review

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was filed within the prescribed limitation period after excluding the time spent obtaining a copy of the ruling. However, the grounds advanced for review do not meet the legal threshold for review, as they do not disclose any manifest error on the face of the record, fraud, or deprivation of the right to be heard. The proper remedy for the applicant was to seek re-admission of the appeal under Order XXXIX Rule 19, not review. Therefore, the application is incompetent and is struck out with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The application for review is struck out with costs.