stanley runyoro vs ms campass construction co ltd 2020 tzhc 4154 8 december 2020
The trial court erred by treating an application under section 96 CPC as a review and by reassigning the matter to another magistrate when the original magistrate was present, violating Order XLII Rule 5 CPC. The orders made, except correction of the appellant's name, are quashed.
- Citation
- stanley runyoro vs ms campass construction co ltd 2020 tzhc 4154 8 december 2020
- Parties
- Appellant: Stanley Runyoro; Respondent: Ms Campass Construction Co. Ltd
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 8 December 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Review, Correction of Errors, Jurisdiction, Damages
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stanley Runyoro
Appellant
Ms Campass Construction Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court was functus officio when determining the application under section 96 CPC
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in awarding specific and general damages without proper proof
- 3 Whether reassignment of the review application to another magistrate was lawful
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court erred by treating an application under section 96 CPC as a review and by reassigning the matter to another magistrate when the original magistrate was present, violating Order XLII Rule 5 CPC. The orders made, except correction of the appellant's name, are quashed.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- decision of the trial court quashed
- all orders set aside except correction of appellant's name
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment