MASSAM JACKSON SAFII

MASSAM JACKSON SAFII

The application was incompetent because the supporting affidavit was attested by an unqualified commissioner for oaths and was not supported by the affidavit of the second applicant, rendering the application invalid and warranting its striking out with costs.

Citation
MASSAM JACKSON SAFII
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Jackson Massam; Applicant: Felister Michael Kiria; 1st Respondent: Self Microfinance Fund; 2nd Respondent: Hussein Juma Kadaru; 3rd Respondent: Jada Investment Limited; 4th Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Affidavit Validity, Temporary Injunction, Commissioner for Oaths Qualification, Joint Applications
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Affidavit Validity Temporary Injunction Commissioner for Oaths Qualification Joint Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Jackson Massam

Applicant

Felister Michael Kiria

Applicant

Self Microfinance Fund

1st Respondent

Hussein Juma Kadaru

2nd Respondent

Jada Investment Limited

3rd Respondent

The Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit was attested by a qualified commissioner for oaths
  2. 2 Whether the application was supported by affidavits from all applicants
  3. 3 Whether the affidavit contained hearsay, false information, legal arguments, conclusions, and opinions

Ratio Decidendi

The application was incompetent because the supporting affidavit was attested by an unqualified commissioner for oaths and was not supported by the affidavit of the second applicant, rendering the application invalid and warranting its striking out with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs

Orders

  • Application struck out
  • Costs awarded to respondents