Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TANZLII

MAKOYE RULING

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 Masanja

Fulgence Joseph Kamina

Respondent Counsel: Joseph Mange

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 01

    Court practice

    Names of parties must appear as they were during lower proceedings unless leave of the court is granted for amendment.

  2. 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.

Source document

TANZLII

Judgment· 1 November 2024

MAKOYE RULING

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

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.