Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TANZLII

Misc

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application was withdrawn at the earliest stage and no costs were warranted; withdrawal granted without order as to costs.

Court disposition

Application withdrawn without order as to costs.

Orders

  • Application marked withdrawn without order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Robert Charles Oteyo [As Administrator of the Estate of the Late Charles Moses Abulwa, the deceased]

Applicant/debtor

Abdirahaman Mohamed Mussa

1st Respondent/decree Holder Counsel: Mpaya Kamara, Mahamoud Mussa

The Attorney General

2nd Respondent Counsel: Urso Luoga

Dar es Salaam City Council

3rd Respondent Counsel: Urso Luoga

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Withdrawal of Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The application contained errors and should be withdrawn for clarity of court records.
Respondent
No objection to the withdrawal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    General principles of civil procedure

    An applicant or plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw their application at any stage of the proceedings, subject to balancing respondent's interests if expenses have been incurred.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application was withdrawn at the earliest stage and no costs were warranted; withdrawal granted without order as to costs.

Court disposition

Application withdrawn without order as to costs.

  • Application marked withdrawn without order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

TANZLII · 18 October 2024

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TANZLII

Judgment· 18 October 2024

Misc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)

AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO 26638 OF 2024 ROBERT CHARLES OTEYO [As Administrator of the Estate of the Late CHARLES MOSES ABULWA, the deceased].................................................... APPLICANT/DEBTOR

VERSUS ABDIRAHAMAN MOHAMED MUSSA .......1st RESPONDENT D/HOLDER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL........................... 2nd RESPONDENT DAR ES SALAAM CITY COUNCIL...................... 3rd RESPONDENT

RULING Date of last Order: 15/11/2024 Date of Ruling: 18/11/2024 LALTAIKA, J. When this Application was called for mention on 13/11/2024 the Applicant appeared in person, unrepresented. Messrs. Mpaya Kamara and Mahamoud Mussa, learned Advocates, appeared for the 1st Respondent while Mr. Urso Luoga, learned State Attorney appeared for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The Applicant quickly submitted that it had come to his knowledge that the application contained errors that in his opinion were not worthy Page 1 of 3 of proceeding for purposes of clarity of court records. He prayed to withdraw the application. Non of the Counsel for the Respondents objected the prayer. The issue before this Court is twofold: first, whether the application should be withdrawn and second, if the answer is to the affirmative, whether it should be withdrawn without costs. The law provides that an Applicant or Plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw their application at any stage of the proceedings. However, a balance must be struck between the Applicant's right to withdraw and the Respondent's interest, especially when expenses have been incurred in response to the application. Having carefully examined the Court records, I entertain no doubt the Application has been withdrawn at the earliest stage possible. In the upshot, the application is hereby marked withdrawn without an order as to costs. It is so ordered. I. LA LTAl KA

JUDGE 18/11/2024 Page 2 of 3 COURT: Ruling delivered in Chambers this 18th day of October 2024 in the absence ofparties. Page 3 of 3

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.