20120726 TZHC Dar es Salaam1
The main suit was dismissed for being time barred and all subsequent applications were either struck out or dismissed; therefore, there is nothing left for the court to determine.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20120726 TZHC Dar es Salaam1
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Shabir Tayabali Esajee; Defendant: Seifu Din Tayabali Esajee
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 26 July 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Ruling on Status After Dismissal
- Outcome
- Suit stands dismissed; no further proceedings possible.
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Time Bar, Injunctive Relief
- 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
Shabir Tayabali Esajee
Plaintiff
Seifu Din Tayabali Esajee
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Status After Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the case can proceed after dismissal for being time barred and subsequent applications being dismissed or struck out
Ratio Decidendi
The main suit was dismissed for being time barred and all subsequent applications were either struck out or dismissed; therefore, there is nothing left for the court to determine.
Court Disposition
Suit stands dismissed; no further proceedings possible.
Orders
- No further orders; suit dismissed and all applications disposed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
-- - - - - - ... I( t. IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM · LAND CASE NO. 143 OF 2005 SHABIR TAYABALI ESAJEE ....................................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS SEIFU DIN TAY ABALI ESAJ EE ................................. DE FEN DANT RULING B.R. MUTUNGI, J. I have decided to make this ruing upon there being some confusion, as to the status of the case. When the· matter came before me on 26/3/2012, lshengoma advocate representing the defendant prayed that as he was new to the case just instructed by the defendant needed time to go through the file · in order to pray for appropriate orders. The matter was fixed for mention on 26/7/2012 and upon the parties not making appearance I decided to peruse through the file and I have made the following observation. 1 It is on record that the main suit was filed on 12/7/2005 and assigned to Rugazia, J. On 19/4/2007 the suit was dismissed by Rugazia, J for being time barred. What followed was the applicant/plaintiff filing an application for injunctive orders the preserve to status quo pending the determination of the intended appeal before the court of appeal as against the ruling by Rugazia, J. On 15/5/2007 Rugazia, J. granted an order for maintenance of status quo pending the determination of the filed application for injunctive orders. On 22/5/2007 the respondent/defendant field a preliminary objection as against the filed application and the some was struck out by Rugazia, J on grounds that the learned counsel who raised the preliminary objection defaulted to file submissions with no reason assigned. The application itself was dismissed on 1/12/2009 by Chinguwile, J. for want of prosecution in absence of both parties. After the dismissal the Judge made an order as follows:- - ORDER: - Mention on 18/2/2009 notify the parties. 2 It• is upon this order that the parties particularly the ' defendant through his legal counsel has been making appearances praying for time to settle the matter out of court. Taking the sequence of events as elaborated above there is nothing for the case to proceed on not· even the · prayer for settlement out of court as the suit has long been dismissed. In the event I find that I have nothing to dwell on· or to determine as the main suit stands dismissed and all the subsequent applications either struck out or dismissed. B.R. MUTUN,GI JUDGE 26/7/201'2 3