19780221 TZHC Bukoba1
The appeal is dismissed for want of appearance by both parties and is further found incompetent as it is based on the appellant's own admission, with the trial court having properly assessed the case.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19780221 TZHC Bukoba1
- Parties
- Appellant: Zephyrin Kagubwao; Respondent: Gordian Kashasha
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 21 February 1978
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Order on Appeal for Want of Appearance
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed for want of appearance and incompetence
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal for Want of Appearance, Appeal Incompetence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Zephyrin Kagubwao
Appellant
Gordian Kashasha
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Order on Appeal for Want of Appearance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be entertained when both parties fail to appear
- 2 Whether the appeal is competent when based on the appellant's own admission
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed for want of appearance by both parties and is further found incompetent as it is based on the appellant's own admission, with the trial court having properly assessed the case.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed for want of appearance and incompetence
Orders
- appeal dismissed for want of appearance
- no order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
-. 1.14'T14K U10M COJR' O1' PA14ZA)i& AT BUKOBA C (PC) CIVIL APPEAL No0 137 OF 1975 From the decision of the district court of Bukoba at Bukoba in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1975 - Before A.N. Russet, Esq.., D,M. and Original Muhutwe Primary Court Civil Case No. 102/74 ZEPHYRIN KAGUBWAO :::::::: : :: : : APPELLANT versus GORDIAN KASHASHA : : : : : : : : : : : : RESPONDENT DATE : 21.2.78 CORAM : SISYA, J. APPELLANT. : Absent .- served RESPONDENT Absent served ORDER Since both parties were duly served but for reas•ns best known to themselves have chosen notto appearI, terefSrej dismiss the appeal for want of appearance. At any rate the appeal itself is incompetent as it is founded on a judgernent on the appellants' own admission. Eventhn, the trial court did not give judgement perfund€rily: It did so after hearing th the parties and visiting the damaged crops and making a proper assessment. As neither party appeared I make no order as to costs. H.E.D. SSYA., JUDGE 21.2. 78 i: • ..,', • .. S.... C . • . - I • £ 'I I _5