ernest magesa ta crucial estates limited 2 others vs nivance godfrey urio 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 16634 27 june 2023

ernest magesa ta crucial estates limited 2 others vs nivance godfrey urio 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 16634 27 june 2023

The application was brought under a provision (Section 15(1) of the Arbitration Act) that does not confer jurisdiction to stay proceedings for arbitration. Wrong citation of the enabling provision is a fatal defect, rendering the application incompetent and incapable of moving the court.

Citation
ernest magesa ta crucial estates limited 2 others vs nivance godfrey urio 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 16634 27 june 2023
Parties
1st Applicant: Ernest Magesa T/A Crucial Estates Limited; 2nd Applicant: Crucial Investment Limited; 3rd Applicant: Ernest Magesa; 1st Respondent: Nivance Godfrey Urio; 2nd Respondent: Davis Godfrey Urio; 3rd Respondent: Peter Peter Junior
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration
Outcome
Application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Clause, Wrong Citation of Law
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Arbitration Land Law Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction Arbitration Clause Wrong Citation of Law

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest Magesa T/A Crucial Estates Limited

1st Applicant

Crucial Investment Limited

2nd Applicant

Ernest Magesa

3rd Applicant

Nivance Godfrey Urio

1st Respondent

Davis Godfrey Urio

2nd Respondent

Peter Peter Junior

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of proceedings pending arbitration is competent before the court due to citation of enabling provisions
  2. 2 Whether Section 15(1) of the Arbitration Act confers jurisdiction to stay proceedings for arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The application was brought under a provision (Section 15(1) of the Arbitration Act) that does not confer jurisdiction to stay proceedings for arbitration. Wrong citation of the enabling provision is a fatal defect, rendering the application incompetent and incapable of moving the court.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The application is struck out with costs.