simon nchagwa vs majalwa bande 2010 tzca 174 28 october 2010

simon nchagwa vs majalwa bande 2010 tzca 174 28 october 2010

The appeal is incompetent because the order appealed from is improperly dated, failing to comply with the requirements of Order XX Rule 7 as it stood at the time of the ruling. The 2010 amendment does not cure the defect in this case, as the order does not indicate the date of extraction and conflicts remain between the old and new provisions.

Citation
simon nchagwa vs majalwa bande 2010 tzca 174 28 october 2010
Parties
Appellant: Simon Nchagwa; Respondent: Majaliwa Bande
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Decree Dating Requirements, Retrospective Application of Procedural Amendments, Competency of Appeal
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Decree Dating Requirements Retrospective Application of Procedural Amendments Competency of Appeal

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Nchagwa

Appellant

Majaliwa Bande

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is competent in light of the dating defect in the drawn order under Order XX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code
  2. 2 Whether the 2010 amendment to Order XX Rule 7 applies retrospectively to cure the defect

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is incompetent because the order appealed from is improperly dated, failing to comply with the requirements of Order XX Rule 7 as it stood at the time of the ruling. The 2010 amendment does not cure the defect in this case, as the order does not indicate the date of extraction and conflicts remain between the old and new provisions.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld
  • Appeal struck out with costs