shadrack balinago vs fikir mohamed hamza others 2021 tzca 45 25 february 2021

shadrack balinago vs fikir mohamed hamza others 2021 tzca 45 25 february 2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate any manifest error on the face of the record in the Court's judgment; his complaints were mere dissatisfaction and did not meet the legal threshold for review. The Court had considered the evidence and submissions, and review cannot be used as an appeal mechanism.

Citation
shadrack balinago vs fikir mohamed hamza others 2021 tzca 45 25 february 2021
Parties
Applicant: Shadrack Balinago; 1st Respondent: Fikiri Mohamed @ Hamza; 2nd Respondent: Tanzania National Roads Agency (TANROADS); 3rd Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the second and third respondents.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Review of Judgment, Manifest Error, Credibility of Witnesses
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Malicious Prosecution Review of Judgment Manifest Error Credibility of Witnesses

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shadrack Balinago

Applicant

Fikiri Mohamed @ Hamza

1st Respondent

Tanzania National Roads Agency (TANROADS)

2nd Respondent

The Attorney General

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a manifest error on the face of the record justifying review of the Court's judgment
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was deprived of a full opportunity to be heard on credibility of witnesses and ground two of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any manifest error on the face of the record in the Court's judgment; his complaints were mere dissatisfaction and did not meet the legal threshold for review. The Court had considered the evidence and submissions, and review cannot be used as an appeal mechanism.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the second and third respondents.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to second and third respondents.