19970217 TZHC Dar es salaam
The application was dismissed because the applicant's counsel failed to appear and no explanation was provided, leaving the court no alternative under Rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19970217 TZHC Dar es salaam
- Parties
- Applicant: Tanzania Air Services Ltd.; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 17 February 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Dismissal for Non Appearance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tanzania Air Services Ltd.
Applicant
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed due to non-appearance of applicant's counsel
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the applicant's counsel failed to appear and no explanation was provided, leaving the court no alternative under Rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application dismissed under Rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules
- Applicant to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
.. .._,. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA _a___ AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION r,·co 58 OF 1996 i~ ~he Matter of an IntPn~ed Appeal BETWEEN • • t .. ~ . TANZANIA- AIR SERVICtS LTD. 0 O O O e • AND ~ ~.,.~ ~-~ :'i .. ATTQRi~EY GENERALo o 0 O O .o O O • • • RESPONDENT ' iA¢plig~tion for leavP. to appeal. to th€' Court of Appeal Of Tanzar.i-a from the Rui~rg of the High Court of Tanz.ania at .Dar es Salaam) (Msurni, J.) rlatP.d thP. 19th day of s~pt~m~r, 1996 in Civil Cas·e f\10. 1 of 1995 -~~ the l~arre~ Coursel for the applicart was duly serve<l with J'"l'.otice of hearing to appear before this morr,irg and there is rio incHcatioh from the: a0vocate' s office as to why he has not·appeareo, thE: Court has r..o alterr.ative but to dismiss the application under ruh=i 58 ( 1) of the Court of Appeal RulP.s with costs •. Di\TED 17th ray of F,,,brua ry,: 1997. Ml\ZAVAS E OF APPEAL I CE· ruE': copy of th"' origiral-. --~-* ·_ . ~, ( ! lo So i,~~)C/ ._,H1\.f\ i./1,LI ) DEPUTY __,___ . ., ..... ·•- ---· REG~STRAR ---,,