sophia amir mrisho vs omar amir mrisho others 2019 tzca 83 20 march 2019

sophia amir mrisho vs omar amir mrisho others 2019 tzca 83 20 march 2019

The respondents failed to prove service of the letter applying for proceedings on the applicant as required by Rule 90(2). Consequently, they cannot rely on the exception to the 60-day rule, and the notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn under Rule 91(a).

Citation
sophia amir mrisho vs omar amir mrisho others 2019 tzca 83 20 march 2019
Parties
Applicant: Sophia Amir Mrisho; Respondent: Omar Amiri Mrisho; Respondent: Anseline Amiri Mrisho; Respondent: Naima Amiri Mrisho; Respondent: Mariam Amiri Mrisho; Respondent: Rehema Amiri Mrisho; Respondent: Raheli Amiri Mrisho; Respondent: Luma Amiri Mrisho; Respondent: Said Amiri Mrisho; Respondent: Zainab Amiri Mrisho; Respondent: Mrisho Amiri Mrisho; Respondent: Nahla Development Ltd.
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Deem Notice of Appeal Withdrawn
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Service of Documents, Time Limits
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeals Service of Documents Time Limits

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sophia Amir Mrisho

Applicant

Omar Amiri Mrisho

Respondent

Anseline Amiri Mrisho

Respondent

Naima Amiri Mrisho

Respondent

Mariam Amiri Mrisho

Respondent

Rehema Amiri Mrisho

Respondent

Raheli Amiri Mrisho

Respondent

Luma Amiri Mrisho

Respondent

Said Amiri Mrisho

Respondent

Zainab Amiri Mrisho

Respondent

Mrisho Amiri Mrisho

Respondent

Nahla Development Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Deem Notice of Appeal Withdrawn

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents served the applicant with a copy of the letter applying for proceedings as required by Rule 90(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' notice of appeal should be deemed withdrawn for failure to institute the appeal within the prescribed time

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to prove service of the letter applying for proceedings on the applicant as required by Rule 90(2). Consequently, they cannot rely on the exception to the 60-day rule, and the notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn under Rule 91(a).

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The notice of appeal lodged by the respondents on 18.1.2018 is deemed withdrawn.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant.