Civil Appeal No

Civil Appeal No

The High Court erred by including in its order a term limiting the appellant's occupation of the premises to a specific date, as this was neither prayed for nor consented to by the parties. Such an order went beyond the scope of the suit and the parties' agreement.

Citation
Civil Appeal No
Parties
Appellant: T.P. Builders Limited; Respondents: The International Marketing Agency & 3 Others
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment, Injunction, Scope of Court Orders, Tenancy and Licensing
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Consent Judgment Injunction Scope of Court Orders Tenancy and Licensing

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T.P. Builders Limited

Appellant

The International Marketing Agency & 3 Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred by limiting the appellant's occupation of the premises to a date not prayed for or consented to
  2. 2 Whether the order went beyond the scope of the suit and the parties' consent

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred by including in its order a term limiting the appellant's occupation of the premises to a specific date, as this was neither prayed for nor consented to by the parties. Such an order went beyond the scope of the suit and the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The words 'The plaintiff to occupy the suit premises until 22/4/84' are deleted from the High Court's order.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant.