NA TZHC Dar es Salaam2
All three arguments raised are contentious issues of law, making this a fit case for further consideration by the Court of Appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- NA TZHC Dar es Salaam2
- Parties
- Appellant: Saidi Rahaji-Mtiti; Respondent: Abdallah Saleim
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Default Judgment, Unregistered Land
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Saidi Rahaji-Mtiti
Appellant
Abdallah Saleim
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 whether the District Court had jurisdiction over unregistered land
- 2 whether default judgment could be entered without ex parte proof by plaintiff
- 3 whether appeal was time-barred and could be summarily rejected
Ratio Decidendi
All three arguments raised are contentious issues of law, making this a fit case for further consideration by the Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- leave to appeal to Court of Appeal granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
·, ,. .. In TIIE mer::: cacmT OP T.ANZPJIIA AT DA11 1"'3 SALAAAM CIVIL APPEAL HO., 3J OF 1990 SAIDI RAHAJI-:lllTI rnrnuTGA - APPELlJ.JJT versu.s .ADDALLAII S;\.LEIIT: • 0 •• b ••• 0 .EESFO!.'ID12TT . ·- RULIHG Thia in .:Ill application :for leave to appeal to Cou:r--'a of Appool-. 'Iha r.ia.ttor cm-,10 ·;;o this couxt ns on appeal fror.1 tho Di:itr-id; Court. For .l'0o.<3011.S stipulo.tcc.1. i:1 JGho Order, this oolll't prcsicl.cd 1);,· r:a.sro1c~10. Judco, rofusod to nd.nlit the npporu. to hoo.rinc- hence ordered it to bo struck out of the · roGi,stJ:ty. In -'i;his application the o.pplicDll't is secld.ng leave to appeal to Court of Appeal. In Sl~pport of this a,pplicati0!l ·:;.t~c lcar-ncd counsel ru:lvap.cod thr-co ar.:ru,omcnts. n.rst ho pointed ot;:[; -:;;_2p_;~ ·::he l~1d in dispute was \ll'l.rce;'istCJ:ccl and so tho na.ttcr OUQ.1" li to :1nvc :,to.:I:toc.l ii.1 prin.:iry cou:d. 1 Tho trial District Court hud no jstrisdiotion on ·C10 ca.so. Secondly ho is suboi t"i;inc.- that since the su1Jjcot nn.ttcr in tl~is case is ::.and, judc.,"i.1011-t ./' in dofm.tl t could only lJo entered. after c:: pnxto ·::roof 'Jy -'G:..Lo plrdntiff. Thero uas no such proof in -'G1lo prcocnt co.::.c. :\r l J.c..st]J ·i;llc loar11cd _ counsel is cJ.mllo.ii.O-llff this court's holi::linr~· t::.-:i.:'. ·cJ.1c '.i:'cjoctocl o.pponl is....- / · , It i3 ovidc11i1 tb.c.t tho lru1cl in t.:.i:::1,u.tc ir w:..roc,i.sterou.. This fact hos bo011 concodocl by tho loc:rnod counsel :c.:: J~h~ rcz:x·:aclcnt.. '.fuo sc,eond_ oonplai.nt is oc.run.lly stronc, JJoforc cntorinc; ji..t.lc;·.10nt i;,1 clcfru.il t, tb.c loarnccl trin.l naaistrato ou.~~,t -~o 1:.cWc im-:i. tad t:.ic 11lcin-tiiff to prove his caso a;;: pn.rto. And lnstly ·l;ho holdin,.; -clla.·' t';o r::·;pc"'l to this court is tiuo-bu;r:rocl is oontontious, It cannot l)o a:· 3;::i::.::::ccl zun;-.1arily without .avr,dli21c; opportu..u. ty for su')iJi:::;zio:n of ·c.:10 iX..r· ics. I~ concl~sion, I nm of ?l~c oonsidcrccl 7i aw ·c.:.in:~ a.11 tho throe a:rgumonts rm.so contentious is:Jt.ws o:? lnw. ]once tl:-..is is [!. fit co.so fo:r forth.or consic.loro.tioh by tho Gou:r-'.; of .Appocl. 'Th.c D-Pl)lico..-'i;ion is thcroforo · grantod cs l,It'l\Y'od., .TtJ'.0'.}.r., - ,~ /.;l