tarime district council vs josina company limited 4 others 2023 tzhc 21437 29 september 2023

tarime district council vs josina company limited 4 others 2023 tzhc 21437 29 september 2023

Applicant is estopped from denying it was a proper party due to its participation in prior proceedings; dual execution orders from the same judgment constitute irregularity; time for revision was properly enlarged; tribunal's orders must be rectified to avoid injustice.

Citation
tarime district council vs josina company limited 4 others 2023 tzhc 21437 29 september 2023
Parties
Applicant: Tarime District Council; 1st Respondent: Josina Company Limited; 2nd Respondent: Mariba Marwa; 3rd Respondent: Stephen Mugore; 4th Respondent: Alphonce Kisiri; 5th Respondent: Mwita Wang'enyi
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Revision Application
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Revision of Tribunal Orders, Estoppel, Limitation of Actions, Execution of Decrees
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Revision of Tribunal Orders Estoppel Limitation of Actions Execution of Decrees

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarime District Council

Applicant

Josina Company Limited

1st Respondent

Mariba Marwa

2nd Respondent

Stephen Mugore

3rd Respondent

Alphonce Kisiri

4th Respondent

Mwita Wang'enyi

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Revision Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was a proper party to be sued
  2. 2 Whether dual execution orders from the same judgment constitute irregularity
  3. 3 Whether the application for revision was time-barred

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant is estopped from denying it was a proper party due to its participation in prior proceedings; dual execution orders from the same judgment constitute irregularity; time for revision was properly enlarged; tribunal's orders must be rectified to avoid injustice.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Order and ruling dated 01/03/2012 (first order) and 14/02/2020 (second order) are nullified and set aside.
  • Judgment delivered on 08/11/2011 from Application No. 78 of 2009 is maintained.