simon robozi others vs longino george 2018 tzhc 2711 28 august 2018

simon robozi others vs longino george 2018 tzhc 2711 28 august 2018

The proceedings and decision of the Ward Tribunal were a nullity as the case was filed by a party without locus standi and the judgment was confusing and unclear. The District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in not recognizing these fundamental defects. The High Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the proceedings and decision of both tribunals below.

Citation
simon robozi others vs longino george 2018 tzhc 2711 28 august 2018
Parties
Appellant: Simon Robozi; Appellant: Alphonce Mulaki; Appellant: Daniel Mbeikya; Appellant: Stella Bernado; Respondent: Longino George
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time
Outcome
Appeal allowed by way of revision; proceedings and decisions of both tribunals set aside.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Locus Standi, Nullity of Proceedings, Proper Party to Suit
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Locus Standi Nullity of Proceedings Proper Party to Suit

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Robozi

Appellant

Alphonce Mulaki

Appellant

Daniel Mbeikya

Appellant

Stella Bernado

Appellant

Longino George

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for extension of time on grounds of negligence
  2. 2 Whether the case was properly framed and the correct party sued
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings and decision of the Ward Tribunal were a nullity

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings and decision of the Ward Tribunal were a nullity as the case was filed by a party without locus standi and the judgment was confusing and unclear. The District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in not recognizing these fundamental defects. The High Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the proceedings and decision of both tribunals below.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed by way of revision; proceedings and decisions of both tribunals set aside.

Orders

  • Proceedings and decisions of the Ward Tribunal and District Land and Housing Tribunal set aside under Section 43(1)(b) of the Land Disputes Courts Act.
  • Case to be filed afresh before a court of competent jurisdiction.