MAKOYE RULING
- Citation
- MAKOYE RULING
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TANZLII
- Decision
- 1 November 2024
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TANZLII
- Decision
- 1 November 2024
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The omission of the applicant's other name is a substantive mistake, not a clerical one, and cannot be rectified by amendment; therefore, the application must be struck out.
Court disposition
Application struck out
Orders
- No order as to costs
02
Material facts
Parties
Zakaria Makoye Charles
Applicant Counsel: Masunga MasanjaFulgence Joseph Kamina
Respondent Counsel: Joseph Mange03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the omission of the applicant's other name constitutes a clerical or substantive mistake
- 02
Whether the application can be amended to correct the party name
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The omission of the other name is a mere clerical mistake.
- Respondent
- The difference in names infringes the principle that parties' names must appear as they were in previous proceedings.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court practice
Names of parties must appear as they were during lower proceedings unless leave of the court is granted for amendment.
- 02
Court practice
Courts may condone clerical mistakes by ordering amendment, but substantive mistakes cannot be rectified by amendment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The omission of the applicant's other name is a substantive mistake, not a clerical one, and cannot be rectified by amendment; therefore, the application must be struck out.
Obiter and limits
- Courts tend to condone clerical mistakes as to the names of the parties by ordering amendment.
Court disposition
Application struck out
- No order as to costs
Source and reliance status
TANZLII · 1 November 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.
TANZLII
Judgment· 1 November 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (MWANZA SUB-REGISTRY)
AT MWANZA MISC. APPLICATION NO. 21382 OF 2024 (Arising from Misc. Application No. 469 of 2003 and Application No. 254 of 2023 in the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mwanza) ZAKARIA MAKOYE CHARLES……………………………………………APPLICANT
VERSUS FULGENCE JOSEPH KAMINA…………………………………………RESPONDENT
RULING 1st November, 2024 KAMANA, J. When the matter was set for a hearing, Mr. Joseph Mange, learned Counsel for the respondent raised an objection that the name of the applicant was quite different from the name he used in Misc. Application No. 469 of 2023 and Application No. 254 of 2023 in the District and Housing Tribunal (DLHT) for Mwanza. The instant application emanates from the two applications before the DLHT. The learned Counsel amplified that in the two applications before the DLHT, the applicant’s name was Zakaria Makoye Charles @Zacharia Makoye Charles whilst in the present application, the applicant goes by the name of Zakaria Makoye Charles. In his view, the difference 1 infringes the principle that the parties' names must appear as they were in the previous proceedings. Responding, Mr. Masunga Masanja, acting under the power of attorney granted by the applicant, was brief as he asserted the omission as a mere clerical mistake. I have pondered the submissions and I am of the considered opinion that the names of the parties must appear as they were during the lower proceedings unless there is a leave of the court for such amendment. In our jurisdiction, courts tend to condone clerical mistakes as to the names of the parties by ordering the amendment of the same. However, in the instant matter, the applicant’s other name which was used in other matters that led to
this matter was omitted. This in my view is not a clerical mistake but a substantive mistake that cannot be rectified by way of an amendment. Worse, the same omission is reflected in an affidavit supporting the application which in essence is evidence of what is complained of concerning the two applications in the DLHT. For that reason, the application is struck out. No order as to costs. DATED at MWANZA this 1st of November, 2024. 2
KS KAMANA
JUDGE 3
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.