shamim shaha vs ibrahim haji selemani others 2021 tzca 670 11 november 2021

shamim shaha vs ibrahim haji selemani others 2021 tzca 670 11 november 2021

The application for review was dismissed because the alleged errors required re-assessment of evidence and were not manifest errors on the face of the record as required by Rule 66(1)(a). The Court has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its own decisions or to re-examine matters already resolved on appeal.

Citation
shamim shaha vs ibrahim haji selemani others 2021 tzca 670 11 november 2021
Parties
Applicant: Shamim Shaha; 1st Respondent: Ibrahim Haji Selemani; 2nd Respondent: The Commissioner for Lands; 3rd Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Review of Appellate Judgment, Manifest Error on the Face of the Record, Finality of Judgments, Land Ownership and Revocation, Double Allocation of Land
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Review of Appellate Judgment Manifest Error on the Face of the Record Finality of Judgments Land Ownership and Revocation Double Allocation of Land

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shamim Shaha

Applicant

Ibrahim Haji Selemani

1st Respondent

The Commissioner for Lands

2nd Respondent

The Attorney General

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a manifest error on the face of the record in the Court of Appeal judgment warranting review under Rule 66(1)(a) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 2009
  2. 2 Whether the grounds raised by the applicant constitute grounds for review or are merely grounds of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was dismissed because the alleged errors required re-assessment of evidence and were not manifest errors on the face of the record as required by Rule 66(1)(a). The Court has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its own decisions or to re-examine matters already resolved on appeal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed in its entirety with costs