robert francis kawishe vs workers development corporation ltd 2013 tzhc 2247 22 february 2013
The appeal is incompetent as it challenges an interlocutory order that does not finally determine the case, and such orders are not appellable under Regulation 22 of the Land Dispute Courts Act Regulations, 2002.
- Citation
- robert francis kawishe vs workers development corporation ltd 2013 tzhc 2247 22 february 2013
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Francis Kawishe; Respondent: Workers Development Corporation (T) Ltd
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 22 February 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order of District Land and Housing Tribunal
- Outcome
- Appeal struck out with costs
- Legal Topics
- Appealability of Interlocutory Orders, Admission of Documents, Procedural Technicalities
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Francis Kawishe
Appellant
Workers Development Corporation (T) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Land Case Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order of District Land and Housing Tribunal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory order refusing admission of documents in the District Land and Housing Tribunal
- 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in law by rejecting documents not annexed at filing
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is incompetent as it challenges an interlocutory order that does not finally determine the case, and such orders are not appellable under Regulation 22 of the Land Dispute Courts Act Regulations, 2002.
Court Disposition
Appeal struck out with costs
Orders
- Appeal struck out as incompetent
- Matter remitted to the District Land and Housing Tribunal for continuation of defence hearing
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment