splendors t limited vs david raymond dsouza another 2023 tzca 17804 8 november 2023

splendors t limited vs david raymond dsouza another 2023 tzca 17804 8 november 2023

The application for review was dismissed because the alleged errors did not constitute manifest errors on the face of the record; the issue of bonafide purchaser for value was not pleaded or determined at trial or on appeal, and the trial court's decision was based on the totality of evidence, not on a certificate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
splendors t limited vs david raymond dsouza another 2023 tzca 17804 8 november 2023
Parties
Applicant: Splendors (T) Limited; 1st Respondent: David Raymond D'Souza (Under Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney of Mary Mushi and Jerry John as Administrators of Christina S. Mugamba - Deceased); 2nd Respondent: Jane Philomena Babsa
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
8 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Review of Appellate Decisions, Manifest Error on the Face of the Record, Bonafide Purchaser for Value, Certificate of Title, Scope of Review Jurisdiction
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land Law Review of Appellate Decisions Manifest Error on the Face of the Record Bonafide Purchaser for Value Certificate of Title Scope of Review Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Splendors (T) Limited

Applicant

David Raymond D'Souza (Under Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney of Mary Mushi and Jerry John as Administrators of Christina S. Mugamba - Deceased)

1st Respondent

Jane Philomena Babsa

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for review met the threshold under rule 66(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules
  2. 2 Whether the Court failed to address the issue of bonafide purchaser for value
  3. 3 Whether the Court relied on a document not admitted in evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was dismissed because the alleged errors did not constitute manifest errors on the face of the record; the issue of bonafide purchaser for value was not pleaded or determined at trial or on appeal, and the trial court's decision was based on the totality of evidence, not on a certificate of title not admitted in evidence.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs