richard mchau vs shabir f abdulhussein 2017 tzca 235 15 june 2017

richard mchau vs shabir f abdulhussein 2017 tzca 235 15 june 2017

The respondent failed to prove service of the letter applying for documents on the applicant, a mandatory requirement under Rule 83(2) of the Old Rules, and thus could not benefit from the exemption to the sixty-day period for filing an appeal. The respondent did not file the appeal within sixty days of lodging the Notice of Appeal, nor did he take other essential steps, warranting striking out the Notice of Appeal under Rule 82.

Citation
richard mchau vs shabir f abdulhussein 2017 tzca 235 15 june 2017
Parties
Applicant: Richard Mchau; Respondent: Shabir F. Abdulhussein
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Notice of Appeal, Service of Notice of Appeal, Compliance With Appellate Rules, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Irregularities
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Striking Out Notice of Appeal Service of Notice of Appeal Compliance With Appellate Rules Leave to Appeal Procedural Irregularities

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Mchau

Applicant

Shabir F. Abdulhussein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed to take essential steps to prosecute the appeal, warranting striking out the Notice of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Notice of Appeal and letter applying for documents were served within the prescribed time
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to file suit in the High Court (Land Division) was competent without citing an enabling provision

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to prove service of the letter applying for documents on the applicant, a mandatory requirement under Rule 83(2) of the Old Rules, and thus could not benefit from the exemption to the sixty-day period for filing an appeal. The respondent did not file the appeal within sixty days of lodging the Notice of Appeal, nor did he take other essential steps, warranting striking out the Notice of Appeal under Rule 82.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • The Notice of Appeal filed by the respondent on 21.02.2006 is struck out with costs to the applicant.
  • The second prayer in the Notice of Motion (leave to file suit in the High Court) is struck out for lack of citation of enabling provision.