tib development bank ltd vs stamili selemani 2020 tzhclandd 153 18 may 2020

tib development bank ltd vs stamili selemani 2020 tzhclandd 153 18 may 2020

The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of sufficient cause for non-appearance, as there was no proof of the advocate's departure or handover failure, and no affidavit from the relevant persons. The non-action for a year constituted negligence and laxity, which does not warrant the court's discretion to set aside the ex-parte order.

Citation
tib development bank ltd vs stamili selemani 2020 tzhclandd 153 18 may 2020
Parties
Applicant: TIB Development Bank Limited; 1st Respondent/plaintiff: Stamiliselemani Kibiga; 2nd Respondent: Ayub Ally Mkonde; 3rd Respondent: KAM Commercial Services; 4th Respondent: Sabek General Trading Company Ltd
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
18 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Sufficient Cause for Non Appearance, Negligence in Legal Representation, Limitation Period for Applications
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Sufficient Cause for Non Appearance Negligence in Legal Representation Limitation Period for 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TIB Development Bank Limited

Applicant

Stamiliselemani Kibiga

1st Respondent/plaintiff

Ayub Ally Mkonde

2nd Respondent

KAM Commercial Services

3rd Respondent

Sabek General Trading Company Ltd

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance to warrant setting aside the ex-parte order
  2. 2 Whether the application was time-barred
  3. 3 Whether negligence or administrative errors constitute sufficient cause

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide credible evidence of sufficient cause for non-appearance, as there was no proof of the advocate's departure or handover failure, and no affidavit from the relevant persons. The non-action for a year constituted negligence and laxity, which does not warrant the court's discretion to set aside the ex-parte order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application to set aside ex-parte order is dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs