IN THE HIGH COURT OFT AN ZAN IA (COMMERCIAL DIVTSfON) AT DAR ES SALAAM
|
|
- Corey Gilmore
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OFT AN ZAN IA (COMMERCIAL DIVTSfON) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC COMMERCIAL CAUSE NO 70 OF 2017 (ARISING FROM COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 127 OF 2016) BETWEEN MAN TRAC T ANZANTA LIMITED A PP LI CANT VERSUS JUNIOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED ST RESPONDENT NCHAMBI'S TRANSPORTERS LIMITED ND RESPONDENT RULING SONGORO,J Before me there is an application for extension of time to file a Petition to stay proceedings pending reference go to Arbitration filed by Mantrac Tanzania Limited the applicant. The applicant application is made under Section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act Cap 89 [R.E 2002] and is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr William langena, Learned Advocate of the applicant. The Respondents in the application are Junior Construction Company Limited and Nchambis Transporters Limited who filed the counter affidavit affirmed by Suleiman Masoud Suleiman and oppose the application. Thus in the light of the application and responses from the parties the court made an order that, parties pursue the application by a way of written submissions. and pursuant to the court order Mr. William Mangena presented written submissions of the applicant while Mr. Frank Mwalongo Learned Advocate presented written submission of the Respondents. On his part, Mr. William Mangena Learned Advocate of the applicant submitted that.. the application for extension of time to file a petition for stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration is granted at the discretion of the court pursuant to Section 14 of the Law of application./"- Cap 89 [ R.E 2002]. He further submitted that. once it is established by an affidavit that. applicant was prevented by any sufficient cause to file the petition within requisite time then that. may be one Page 1 of 8
2 of the ground of granting an application for extension of time. Also. he clarified that, if there was a delay in filing the application for extension of time, the applicant must account for the delay. Submitting on the application, the counsel stated that. the time limit for the application to stay proceedings in the case at hand is not provided for but in principle a petition to stay proceedings for stay of proceedings is that. the petition must be filed within 60 days from the date of service of the plaint. The counsel then stated that. the applicant was served with a plaint on 5/10/2016 and 60 days period elapsed on 4/12/2016 and the present application was :filed on 14/3/2017 after the elapse of about 100 days. On the cause of delay, Mr. William Mangera explained that, previously on October 2016 the applicant timely filed Commercial Case No 127 of 2016 a Petition to go to arbitration but was truck out on technical ground on the March However even after the struck out of the petition, the applicant is still anxious to pursue its rights in terms of the agreement to go to arbitration save for the fact that, is now time barred. So the reasons for delay in filing a Petition to go to arbitration is due to the fact that, their previously filed a Petition which was struck out and by the moment it was struck out the requisite time of filing another Petition has already expired. The applicant's counsel then explained that, failure to file the Petition on the statutory requisite time was due to negligence and even if the struck out petition has a mistake that, was not intentional. The counsel then explained in his paragraph 7 of his affidavit that, the interest of justice demands the application be granted. To support his grounds of extension of time, the applicant counsel drew the attention of the court to a decision in the case of Salvand K.A Rwegasira Versus China Henan International Group Co Ltd. Civil Reference No )2 of 2015, Fortunatas William Masha Versus William Shija and Another (TLR) 154. Yara Tanzania Limited Versus DB Shapriya Civil Application No 498 of'.)016 (Unreported) and Zahara kitindi and Dominic 13 Francis Versus Juma Swalehe. Civil Application No 4 /05 of?017 (Unreported). Then relying on a decision of Fortunata Masha (Supra) which decided that, there is a distinction between cases involving real and actual delays and those such as the present one which clearly only involved technical delays in the sense that. the original appeal was lodged on time but had been found to be incompetent for one or another reasons and a fr sh appeal had to be instituted: Page 2 of 8
3 In the circumstances, the negligence if any really refers to the filing of incompetent appeal, not delay in filing it. The filing of an incompetent appeal having been duly penalized by striking out, the same cannot be used yet again to determine the timorousness of applying for filing the fresh appeal. So the applicant counsel by relying the decision of cited case he appeal to the court not to apply the striking of an appeal as a measures of finding that, there was a delay in in filing the petition. The counsel applied to the court to grant an extension of time to applicant to file a Petition to go to arbitration. On his part, Mr. Frank Mwalongo. Learned Advocate of the Respondent he vehemently opposed the application and raised three preliminary objection on points of law First, he argued and submitted that, the verification is defective because the deponent has not disclosed in the verification clause whether facts depone in the affidavit are true according to his own knowledge or are derived from information received from other sources which was not even disclosed in the affidavit. Due to the fact that, Mr. William Mangena was silent in his verification clause as to whether the facts depone in his affidavit are within his own knowledge or information received from another sources which was never disclosed, thus the verification clause is defective and ultimately the affidavit is also defective. Mr Mwalongo states that, the legal consequences of filing an affidavit which its verification is defective, is that, it has to be rejected. So on the objection raised the Respondent's counsel prayed to the court to the application Moving to the second preliminary objection on point of law, the Respondent's counsel explained that, under Rule 3(1) of Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 [R.E. 200?] affidavit is supposed to confine to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove except on interlocutory application on which statements of his belief may be admitted. The Respondent counsel then faulted the applicant's affidavit that, it does not state whether the depone facts are based on the deponent' s own knowledge or be] iefs, therefore the affidavit contravenes the provisions of Rule 3 (1) of Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 [R.E?002]. Mr. Mwalongo insisted that. turn the affidavit to be defective. Page 3 of 8
4 //1 While on this point the Respondent's counsel referred the court to a decision in the case of Salima Vuai Foum Versus Reaistrar of Coo erative Societies and three others 1995 TLR 75 (CA) where it was decided that, an affidavit which has not disclosed the source of information, must not be to acted upon by the court. So he prayed to the court not to act on the affidavit in support of the application because the affidavit did not disclose sources of the facts depone. Turning to the third preliminary objection on point of law the Respondent's Counsel argued that, the schedule to the Oaths and Statutor declarations Act Ca 34 R.E 2002 requires the Commissioner for Oaths before whom oath is taken to state whether he knows the deponent personally, or the deponent has been introduced to him by another person who knows him. Also the name of the person who introduces the deponent must be stated in thejurat of attestation clause. Mr. Mwalongo then submitted that, in the Jurat of attestation in the affidavit of the Mr. William Mangera, the Commissioner for Oaths has stated that, William Mangera the deponent is known to him and at the same time stated that, William Mangera has been introduced him by someone who was not mentioned or stated in the j urat of attestation. So Mr. Frank Mwalongo argued that, since the Commissioner for oath in the jurat of attestation has stated that, he knows the deponent and at the same time has stated that, the deponent was introduced to him by a person who was not disclosed the Jurat of attestation. likewise the affidavit in support of the application is also defective. On the basis of the above mentioned preliminary objection on points of law, Mr. Mwalongo prayed to the court to uphold the preliminary objection on points of Jaw and strike out the application. Turning to the merit of application Mr. Mwalongo submitted the main issue for determination in the application is whether the applicant's delay caused by failure to comply with Rule 19 of the High Court (Commercial Division) Procedural Rules ON 2500F 2012 constitutes a sufficient cause excusable to grant an extension of time to file petition for stay of proceedings. The counsel then went on to submit that, under Section 14( 1) of the Law of Limitation Act Cap 89 [R.E 2002] it requires the applicant to adduce sufficient cause for delay. Page 4 of 8
5 t} While on this point the Respondent's counsel then argued that, 111 the present applicant's application there is no good reasons nor exceptional circumstances, to warrant the extension of time because Advocates negligence was disqualified to constitute a good cause for the delay and to warrant an extension of time. Finally, Mr Mwalongo prayed that the application be dismissed for lack of merit. In response to the preliminary objection, the applicant counsel pointed out that, there is defects in the verification clause and he added that, the requirement of Rule 3 of Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 is that, pleadings/affidavit there must have verification clause and jurat of attestation. He then explained that, the law does not provide any format of verification clause but for particular statements which should be in the verification clause. On the cited case of Salim a Vuai Foum Versus Registrar of Cooperative Societies and 3 others (1995) TLR 75 the applicant counsel claim that. it has been misapplied because the principle is that, where the affidavit is made on information that, is where it should not be acted upon by any court unless the sources of Information are specified. So the rule applies where an affidavit its sources are based on information. The counsel then submitted that, the affidavit in support of the application its source is not solely based on the information. Responding on the second objection that, the Jurat of attestation is defective, and is not compliance with the requirements provided under the schedule to the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act Cap 34 [R.E 2002] that, the Commissioner failure to indicate whether or not he knew the deponent or deponent was introduced to him, Mr William submitted that, the affidavit was properly attested by the Notary and complied with Rule 3 of Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 and Section 8 of the Notary Public and Commissioner for Oaths. The counsel then insisted the Jaw requires affidavit be attested and that, has been done. Replying to the Respondent submission on the application, Mr. Willaim maintained his prayer that, the applicant has assigned sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application is just because the previously file a Petition to stay proceedings within statutory required time but it was inadvertently strike out on technical reasons. He the indicated that, the law allows the court to grant an extension of time The Court has subjected the arguments raised by both parties with the weight it deserved and close scrutiny and find it is a rule of practice that. a preliminary objection on points of law must be determined first. So I decided to consider three preliminary objection on points of law Page 5 of 8
6 /~ which were raised by Respondent's Counsel, after their determination if need I will proceed to deal with the merit of the application. The court has considered the Respondent 1 51 and 2 11 c1 Preliminary Objection on point of law, and find the objection raised are based on the provisions of Rule 3 ( l) of Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 [R.E 2002] which states that. : Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications on which statements of his belief may be admitted Also there is preliminary objection raised is based Rule 15(2) of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 [R.E 2002] which states;- The person verifying shall specify, hy reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading. what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verified upon information received and believed to be true. So read together the Rule 3 (1) of Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 [R.E 200?] they clearly provide what affidavit has to be confined. First is to such fact the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove. The second prerequisite is on the affidavit which are on interlocutory application that, is where statements of deponent belief may be admitted Next the court perused also Rule 15(?) of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 [R.E 2002] which imposes duty to the person verifying pleadings which requires a person verifying to make reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleadings on what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verified upon information received and believed to be true. It seem to me the requirements set in Rule] ( l) of Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 and those stated in Rule J 5(2) of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 are mandatory and must be complied with the deponent who verify the affidavit or a party verifying pleadings. Page 6 of 8
7 With that, legal position in mind I critically examined the verification clause of affidavit depone by Willaim Mangena Learned Advocate of the applicant, and find the verification clause is framed in the following words;- "I William Mang 'ena do hereby verify all what is stated above in paragraphs l, 2. 3,4,5,6 and 7 above" So guided by what was verified by Mr. William Mangera he stated to have verified paragraphs' 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 above. He did not state in his verification clause if the facts her verified are of his own knowledge. Likewise he did not state in his verification clause if the facts depone are verified upon information received and believed to be true. It appears to the court that, Mr. William Mangena was non-committal on facts depone if were from his own knowledge or he verified upon information received and believed to be true. Quite frankly I find the omission by Mr William Mangera to state in his verification clause if the facts depone in the affidavit are within his own knowledge or are from information received which he believe to be true is an error which appears in the deponent verification clause. It is not the duty of the court to make a guesswork or an assumption on the deponent affidavit on which paragraphs are verified from the deponent own knowledge, and which are verified from information received from other sources It is important for the parties and deponent to understand that, Courts of law in several decision including decision in the case of Ki2.anga and Associates Gold Mining Company Limited Versus Universal Gold NL (?002] TLR p 1?9 have repeatedly and consistently stated that the function of "verification clause" is aimed to counter possible abuse of court process and fixing responsibility to authorized officials. It follows therefore if therefor if the deponent makes none committal statements on the verification clause that, defeat the whole purposes of the verification clause which has the aim of countering possible abuse. Page 7 of 8
8 It appears from the provision of of Rule 3 (I) of Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 [R.E 2002] that, its compliance is mandatory. Likewise it appears from Rule l 5(2) of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 [R.E 2002] that, its compliance is mandatory. Bearing in mind that, Mr. William Mangena in his verification clause was non-committal if the facts depone were within his own knowledge or are from information received which he believe to be true I find his verification clause and affidavit in support of the application are incurable defective for not comply with the provisions of Rule 3 (1) of Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 R,E 2001 which governs the legal requirement of the affidavit. Further the court find, since applicant's counsel was not diligent enough. to apply for correction of defects which appears in the verification clause, error, l find such defective affidavit may not support the application for extension of time to tile a petition. In view of the above the only option left to the court is to strike out the application on the grounds that. the verification clause in support of the application is defective for contravening the mandatory provisions of Rule 3 (I) of Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 R.E 7002 which governs statutory requirement of the affidavit. For reasons stated above. l uphold the objection raised and there is no plausible reasons to deal with remaining issues. Therefore the applicant application is strike out with costs in favour of the Respondents Signed and Dated at Dar es Salaam this day of August 2018 H.T,SO~ JUDGE Page 8 of 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT OAR ES SALAAM RULING
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT OAR ES SALAAM 1. ATTORNEY GENERAL} 2. T.R.A RULING Mlay, J. This ruling is on a preliminary objection on points of law to an application for leave to apply for the orders
More informationIN THE MATTER OF ANA PPLIATION FOR PREROGATIVE ORDERS OFCERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS BY ADELINA CHUGULU AND 99 OTHERS
IN THE MATTER OF ANA PPLIATION FOR PREROGATIVE ORDERS OFCERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS BY ADELINA CHUGULU AND 99 OTHERS IN THE MATTER OF REVISION OF THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL EXAMINATION COUNCIL OF TANZANIA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM VERSUS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM ERNEST MANENO SHIJA VERSUS MAZINGA CORPORATION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT Date of last Order: 19/09/2006 Date of Ruling: 06/11/2007 Mlay, J. Mzinga Corporation is
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT OAR ES SALAAM. (CORAM: KIMARO,J.A., MASSATI,J.A., And MUGASHA,J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT OAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: KIMARO,J.A., MASSATI,J.A., And MUGASHA,J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 171 OF 2015 1. JOHN PAUL SHIBUDA ~ 2.TANZANIAINTERNATIONA AGRI INPUT CO-L
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANIOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2017 MANSOR AND
(... \...' IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (MAIN REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANIOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION MANSOR BY NASSORO SLEYUM AND IN THE MATTER OF AN
More informationRAMADHANI, C.J., LUBUVA, J.A. And NSEKELA, J.A.) KAPINGA & COMPANY ADVOCATES... APPELLANT VERSUS NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE LIMITED...
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: RAMADHANI, C.J., LUBUVA, J.A. And NSEKELA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2007 KAPINGA & COMPANY ADVOCATES... APPELLANT VERSUS NATIONAL BANK OF
More informationAR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4 OF COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA- RUTAKANGWA, J.A.
1 AR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2006- COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA- RUTAKANGWA, J.A. ROBERT LESKAR Vs. SHIBESH ABEBE (Application to set aside the Dismissal Order of 15/09/2006 and restore AR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM
Citation Parties Legal Principles Discussed TANZANIA SEWING MACHINES COMPANY LIMITED Vs. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.56 of 2007 Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam. Munuo, J.A MJAKE ENTERPRISES LIMITED.
More information1 ST ADILI BANCORP LIMITED.APPELLANT VERSUS ISSA HUSSEIN SAMMA...RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A., MROSO, J.A. And MUNUO, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2006 1 ST ADILI BANCORP LIMITED.APPELLANT VERSUS ISSA HUSSEIN SAMMA....RESPONDENT
More informationSELEMANI RAJABU MIZINO... APPLICANT VERSUS 1. SHABIR EBRAHIM BHAIJEE 2. FAYEZA SHABIR BHAIJEE... RESPONDENTS 3. HUZAIRA SHABIR BHAIJEE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2007 In the Matter of an Intended Appeal SELEMANI RAJABU MIZINO... APPLICANT VERSUS 1. SHABIR EBRAHIM BHAIJEE 2. FAYEZA SHABIR
More informationIn this application made under Rule 11 (2) (b) of the Court of. Appeal Rules, 2009, the applicant, Indian Ocean Hotels Ltd. t/a
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: RUTAKANGWA, J.A., MBAROUK, J.A., And MASSATI, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 82 A OF 2010 INDIAN OCEAN HOTELS LTD. t/a GOLDEN TULIP DAR ES SALAAM
More informationREGIONAL MANAGER, TANROADS KAGERA.. APPLICANT VERSUS RUAHA CONCRETE COMPANY LIMITED... RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2007 REGIONAL MANAGER, TANROADS KAGERA.. APPLICANT VERSUS RUAHA CONCRETE COMPANY LIMITED.... RESPONDENT (Application for
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19)
COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19) IN exercise of the powers conferred on the Rules of Court Committee by Article 157(2) of the Constitution these Rules are made this 24th day of July, 1997. PART I-GENERAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL REFERENCE NO.12 OF 2004 DAVID MWAKIKUNGA. APPELANT VERSUS
1 Civil reference No.12 of 2004 Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam. Munuo, J.A, Kaji, J.A and Kimaro. David Mwakikunga Vs Mzumbe University (inccessor of the title of IDM Mzumbe) (Reference from
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA COMMERCIAL DIVISION AT OAR ES SALAAM MISC.COMMERCIAL CAUSE NO.70 OF 2013 VERSUS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA COMMERCIAL DIVISION AT OAR ES SALAAM MISC.COMMERCIAL CAUSE NO.70 OF 2013 1. ANDREW WISTON KALELA NDIMBO 1 st APPLICANT 2. CHRISTINA ANDREW NDIMBO 2 nd APPLICANT VERSUS 1.
More informationRULING OF THE COURT. The third respondent herein, Elias K. Musiba, used to be an employee
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: RUTAKANGWA, J.A., MBAROUK, J.A., And MASSATI, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2010 TANZANIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LTD... APPLICANT VERSUS
More informationGEORGE MUKUYE SALONGO APPLICANT VERSUS MK CREDITORS LIMITED RESPONDENT RULING
.- THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA COMMERCIAL DIVISION HIGH COURT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 594 OF 2015 (FROM HCT -OO-CS-CS-No. 461 OF 2015) GEORGE MUKUYE SALONGO APPLICANT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM RULING
/".1", IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 311 OF 1999 MWENGE GAS AND LUB OIL LTD PLAINTIFF VERSUS UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM DEFENDANT RULING A.Shangwa,J. On 17/8/1999, DR.
More informationThe appellants, through the services of the Women's Legal Aid. Centre (WLAC) lodged the present appeal to challenge the dismissal of
1 IN THE COURTOF APPEALOF TANZANIA AT OAR ESSALAAM (CORAM: RAMAOHANI, C.l., MUNUO, l.a., RUTAKANGWA, l.a., KIMARO, l.a., And BWANA, l.a.) CIVIL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2007 ELIZABETH STEPHEN 1ST APPELLANT SALOME
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 28 OF 2014 URSINO PALMS ESTATE LIMITED... APPLICANT VERSUS 1. KYELA VALLEY FOODS LTD.................... lst RESPONDENT 2. THE
More information(CORAM: RAMADHANI, C.J., MROSO, J.A. And KAJI, J.A.) 1. JOSEPH CHUWA 2. HASHIM MOTTO.. APPELLANTS VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA (CORAM: RAMADHANI, C.J., MROSO, J.A. And KAJI, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2006 1. JOSEPH CHUWA 2. HASHIM MOTTO.. APPELLANTS VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) JUDGMENT the demolition Notice cis 12(2) and 64 of the township Rules Cap. 101. district and Dar es Salaam Region, erecting a Dwelling house
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA MISC. APPLICATION NO. 140 OF 2002.
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA MISC. APPLICATION NO. 140 OF 2002. GREENWATCH:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::APPLICANT VERSUS ATTORNEY GENERAL
More informationThis is an application for extension of time within which to lodge an. application for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court sitting
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: MSOFFE, J.A., RUTAKANGWA, J.A., And LUANDA, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 182 A OF 2007 SELINA CHIBAGO... APPLICANT VERSUS FINIHAS CHIBAGO... RESPONDENT
More informationDate of last Order. Date of Ruling
Date of last Order Date of Ruling TIMA HAJI through the services of K. MWITTAWAISSAKA ADVOCATE,has made an application by Chamber Summons under the Civil Procedure Code 1966 seeking from this court, the
More informationLegal Profession (Public Notaries) Determination 2015
Western Australia Legal Profession Act 2008 Legal Profession (Public Notaries) Determination 2015 As at 01 Jul 2015 Version 00-a0-01 Western Australia Legal Profession (Public Notaries) Determination
More informationCitation Parties Legal Principles Discussed
1 Citation Parties Legal Principles Discussed CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2007- COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM- MSOFFE, J.A, KAJI, J. A; and RUTAKANGWA, J. A. 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
More informationAT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2002 MATHEW MBATA...APPLICANT VERSUS DENIS CATHELESS...RESPONDENT RULING
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2002 MATHEW MBATA...APPLICANT VERSUS DENIS CATHELESS...RESPONDENT Date of last order - 29/2/2008 Date of Ruling - 31/03/2008 RULING
More informationThis is an application for revision in terms of the provisions of
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ESSALAAM (CORAM: LUBUVA, l.a., MROSO, l.a., And MSOFFE, l.a.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2005 1. ABBAS SHERALLY ] 2. MEHRUNISSA ABBAS SHERALLY ]................
More informationpc. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2002 (Original Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2001 IIala District Court before Mr. Mnengo H.M.)
AT DAR ES SALAAM pc. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2002 (Original Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2001 IIala District Court before Mr. Mnengo H.M.) CHARLES MOSES.... APPELLANT I APPLICANT VERSUS Date of last order - 21/12/2007
More informationSamuel G. Momanyi v Attorney General & another [2012] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Petition 341 of 2011 SAMUEL G. MOMANYI..PETITIONER VERSUS THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL..... 1ST RESPONDENT SDV TRANSAMI KENYA LTD....2ND
More informationGOVERNMENT NOTICE NO. 57 published on 20/4/2001. THE TAX REVENUE APPEALS ACT (No. 15 OF 2000) RULES. (Made under section 33)
GOVERNMENT NOTICE NO. 57 published on 20/4/2001 THE TAX REVENUE APPEALS ACT (No. 15 OF 2000) RULES (Made under section 33) THE TAX REVENUE APPEALS BOARD RULES, 2001 PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Citation
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CORAM: RAMADHANI, J. A. NSEKELA, J. A. AND KAJI, J. A. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
1 In the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam Civil Application No. 173 of 2004 KAJI, J.A STELLA TEMU VS TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY (Application for Revenue from the judgement of the Court of Appeal
More information2yh August, Supplement No THE BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT (CAP.
ISSN 0856-034X Supplement No. 34 SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION 2yh August, 2014 to the Gazette of the United Republic of Tanzania No. 35 Vol 95 dated 2cjh August, 2014 Printed by the Government Printer, Dar es
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DARE S SALAAM MAIN REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DARE S SALAAM MAIN REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2008 1. WINSTON MABAGARA 2. NYANGINDU MARTINE 3. MOFEST AUGUSTINE APPLICANTS 4. GEORGE
More informationTHE INDUSTRIAL COURT (PROCEDURE) RULES, Citation. These Rules may be cited as the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010.
The Industrial Court (procedure) Rules, 2010 Published On: Fri 28, May, 2010 IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 21 (4) of the Labour Institutions Act, 2007, the Rules Board, in consultation
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM REVISION NO 305 OF 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM REVISION NO 305 OF 2010 TANZANIA BUILDING WORKS LTD. APPLICANT VERSUS ALLY MGOMBA & 4 OTHERS RESPONDENTS (Original CMA/DSM/TEM/337/09) 17/09/2012
More information(Application for stay of execution from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION NO 82 OF 2008 NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION. APPLICANT AND HAMISI LUSWAGA... 1 ST RESPONDENT PETER KASIDI..2 ND RESPONDENT CHRISTOPHER
More informationCivil Appeal No 4 of 2003 in the court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam
1 Civil Appeal No 4 of 2003 in the court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam DAHABURALI E. SHAMJI TADEMA OVERSEAS LIMITED Vs. 1. The Treasury Registrar Ministry of Finance Tanzania. 2. The Attorney
More informationCHAPTER 26 THE DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Section CHAPTER 26 THE DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Title PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Deeds of arrangement to which the
More informationTHE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA THE TAX REVENUE APPEALS ACT CHAPTER 408 REVISED EDITION 2006
THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA THE TAX REVENUE APPEALS ACT CHAPTER 408 REVISED EDITION 2006 This edition of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act, Cap. 408 incorporates all amendments up to 30th November, 2006
More informationTANZANIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD...APPLICANT/J.DEBTOR INTEREBEST INVESTMENT CO. LIMITED.RESPONDENT/D. HOLDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 68 OF 2000 TANZANIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD....APPLICANT/J.DEBTOR VERSUS INTEREBEST INVESTMENT CO. LIMITED.RESPONDENT/D.
More informationFor Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy
Information & Instructions: Petition to enforce foreign judgment 1. The following form, Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment, is used to enforce a judgment obtained in a state other than Texas. 2. In order
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIIVIL APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2006 STANBIC BANK TANZANIA LTD.. APPLICANT VERSUS
1 Civil Application No 111 of 2006 court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam Msoffe, J.A Stanbic Bank Tanzania Ltd Vs Plexus Cotton Ltd (Application for stay of execution from decision of High Court
More informationBefore: Justice Minnet Hafiz-Bertram. Mr. Rodwell Williams SC for the Respondents
Claim No. 201 of 2012 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2012 IN THE MATTER of section 86(2) of the Belize Constitution IN THE MATTER of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 9 AND IN THE MATTER
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2348/2014 IN THE MATTER OF: ALKA KASANA Reserved on: 14.07.2015 Date of decision: 24.08.2015... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocate with Mr.
More informationSTAY OF EXECUTION-whether the application has been overtakenusually,
Citation Parties Legal Principles Discussed 1. SHABIR EBRAHIM BHAIJEE 2. FAZA SHABIR BHAIJEE 3. HUZAIRA SHABIR BHAIJEE Vs. 1. SELEMANI RAJABU MIZINO, 2. REGISTRAR OF TITLES- CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 40 OF
More information(CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., KILEO, J.A. And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., KILEO, J.A. And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008 AGNESS SIMBAMBILI GABBA. APPELLANT VERSUS DAVID SAMSON GABBA RESPONDENT
More informationELIGI EDWARD MASSAWE AND THREE OTHERS (On behalf of 104 others)..applicants ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TWO OTHERS...RESPONDENTS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: MUNUO, J.A., MSOFFE, J.A. And KAJI, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 75 OF 2006 ELIGI EDWARD MASSAWE AND THREE OTHERS (On behalf of 104 others)..applicants
More informationAN ACT. (H. B. 2249) (Conference) (No ) (Approved December 29, 2009)
(H. B. 2249) (Conference) (No. 220-2009) (Approved December 29, 2009) AN ACT To amend Rules 4.2, 4.3; renumber Rule 4.3.1 as Rule 4.5, renumber Rules 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 as Rules 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8; to amend
More informationThe court annexed arbitration program.
NEVADA ARBITRATION RULES (Rules Governing Alternative Dispute Resolution, Part B) (effective July 1, 1992; as amended effective January 1, 2008) Rule 1. The court annexed arbitration program. The Court
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CAP 67 AND
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CAP 67 AND THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR A RECEIVING ORDER BY MARIA K MUTESI (DEBTOR)
More informationSCHEDULE CHAPTER 117 THE REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS ACT An Act relating to the registration of documents. [1st January, 1924]
SCHEDULE CHAPTER 117 THE REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS ACT An Act relating to the registration of documents. [1st January, 1924] R.L. Cap. 334 Ords. Nos. 14 of 1923 16 of 1926 11 of 1932 38 of 1939 33 of 1941
More informationUtah Court Rules on Trial Motions Francis J. Carney
Revised July 10, 2015 NOTE 18 December 2015: The trial and post-trial motions have been amended, effective 1 May 2016. See my blog post for 18 December 2015. This paper will be revised to reflect those
More informationA Bill Regular Session, 2019 HOUSE BILL 1489
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. 0 0 0 State of Arkansas nd General Assembly As Engrossed: H// A Bill Regular Session, 0 HOUSE BILL By: Representative
More informationElectronic evidence in Tanzania
Article: Electronic evidence in Tanzania By Adam J. Mambi An overview of the legal status of electronic evidence The term electronic evidence includes data that comprises the output of an analogue device
More informationSpecial Appeal No. 390 of 2018
Reserved IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 390 of 2018 Paresh Tripathi Appellant Versus Mahesh Chandra Sharma and others. Respondents Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
More informationDEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) RULES, (1) These rules may be called the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) RULES, 1993 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections(1) and (2) of section 36 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Ordinance, 1993
More informationDISTRICT AND INTERMEDIATE COURTS (CIVIL JURISDICTION) ACT
DISTRICT AND INTERMEDIATE COURTS (CIVIL JURISDICTION) ACT Cap 173 5 November 1888 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Short title 2. Interpretation 3. PART I PRELIMINARY PART II PROCEDURE 4. Suit by plaint 5. Where
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$15.20 WINDHOEK - 7 November 2014 No. 5608 CONTENTS Page GOVERNMENT NOTICES No. 227 Amendment of Rules of High Court of Namibia: High Court Act, 1990... 1
More informationTHE DISPUTED ELECTIONS (PRIME MINISTER AND SPEAKER) ACT, 1977 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
SECTIONS THE DISPUTED ELECTIONS (PRIME MINISTER AND SPEAKER) ACT, 1977 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Definitions. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CHAPTER II AUTHORITIES FOR DISPUTED
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ZANZIBAR
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ZANZIBAR (AppHq~tij)_nfQrJeave to appeal to The Court of Appeal of Tanzania from the Ruling and Order of the High Court of.~~!1zibar at Vuga) dated the 9 th day of
More informationJaffar A Kassam v Orange Democratic Movement Party & another [2017] eklr
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE POLITICAL PARTIES DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI COMPLAINT 224 OF 2017 JAFFAR A. KASSAM........APPLICANT VERSUS ORANGE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT PARTY....1 ST RESPONDENT MICHAEL MAGERE
More informationThrough : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RESERVED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2014 CS (OS) 1980/2011 & CC No.21/2012 SHIV SHAKTI MADAN... Plaintiff Through
More informationTHE DISTRICT AND INTERMEDIATE COURTS (CIVIL JURISDICTION) ACT 1888
THE DISTRICT AND INTERMEDIATE COURTS (CIVIL JURISDICTION) ACT 1888 Act 34/1852 LANE CAP 173 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I - PRELIMINARY 1. Short title 2. Interpretation 3. Recovery of cost of sewerage
More informationAmended by Order dated June 21, 2013; effective July 1, RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART FIVE THE SUPREME COURT B. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Amended by Order dated June 21, 2013; effective July 1, 2013. RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART FIVE THE SUPREME COURT B. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Rule 5:7B. Petition for a Writ of Actual Innocence.
More informationGovernment of Orissa Information & Public Relations Department **** NOTIFICATION. No.7307/ I&PR. Bhubaneswar, dated the 6 th March, 2006
Government of Orissa Information & Public Relations Department **** NOTIFICATION No.7307/ I&PR. Bhubaneswar, dated the 6 th March, 2006 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section
More informationANTI-RAGGING MEASURES : SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVIT BY THE STUDENTS / PARENT / GUARDIAN
ANTI-RAGGING MEASURES : SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVIT BY THE STUDENTS / PARENT / GUARDIAN Dear Parents/Guardian/Student, You are fully aware of the orders of the Government and of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the
More informationREVOKED AS OF APRIL 11, 2016
MSA Hearing Procedures Table of Contents PART 1 INTERPRETATION 1 Definitions 2 Application of Procedures PART 2 GENERAL MATTERS 3 Directions 4 Setting of time limits and extending or abridging time 5 Variation
More informationRULES GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
RULES GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 1. Definitions. As used in these rules: (A) Arbitration means a process whereby a neutral third person, called an arbitrator, considers
More informationJune was consistent with Art 2.3 (9) of the Constitution."
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE NO. 7 OF 1998 CORAM: HON. MR. JUSTICE S.T. MANYINDO, DC, HON. MR. JUSTICE G.M. OKELLO, J.A., HON. MR. JUSTICE
More informationDiana Lukosi v Kenya African National Union Party & 2 Others [2017] eklr
REPUBLIC OF KENYA POLITICAL PARTIES DISPUTES TRIBUNAL COMPLAINT. NO. 72 OF 2017 DIANA LUKOSI....COMPLAINANT VERSUS KENYA AFRICAN NATIONAL UNION PARTY 1 ST RESPONDENT KILIMO STANLEY KORE...2 ND RESPONDENT
More informationFederal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Commencement: 1st May 2000 In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and all powers
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (OAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT OAR ES SALAAM MISC. CIVIL CAUSE NO.157 OF 2005 ELIZABETH AUGUSTINO SAID PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (OAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT OAR ES SALAAM MISC. CIVIL CAUSE NO.157 OF 2005 ELIZABETH AUGUSTINO SAID PETITIONER VERSUS 1. OYSTERBAY PROPERTIES LTD 1 st RESPONDENT
More informationGOVERNMENT NOTICE NO published on. THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION ACT (CAP.141) RULES. (fv1ade under section 12) THE TANZANI COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 2009
GOVERNMENT NOTICE NO published on. THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION ACT (CAP.141) RULES (fv1ade under section 12) THE TANZANI COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 2009 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES CITATION PART 1 AND INTERPRET ATION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM. (CORAM: MROSO, J. A, MSOFFE, J. A. AND KAJI, J. A.) CIVIL REFERECE NO.
1 Civil Reference No 14 of 2005 Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam. Mroso, J.A, Msoffe, J.A and Kaji, J.A Philip Chumbuka VS. Masudi Ally Kasele (Appeal from the Judgement Decision of the Appeal
More informationThis is an application for extension of time in which to.applyfor. leave to appeal out of time. The matter relates to High Court Civil
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA BERTHA ANQ~J~S_QN..................... RESPONDENT (Application for extension of time from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Moshi) (Mchome, J.)
More informationCASE NO: JS1034/2001. ENSEMBLE TRADING 341 (PTY) LIMITED Second Respondent JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: and CASE NO: JS1034/2001 Applicant First Respondent ENSEMBLE TRADING 341 (PTY) LIMITED Second Respondent JUDGMENT FRANCIS J Introduction 1. The
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM VICTOR SUNGURA TOKE... APPLICANT VERSUS P.S.R.C & BOARD OF INTERNAL TRADE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM VICTOR SUNGURA TOKE...... APPLICANT VERSUS P.S.R.C & BOARD OF INTERNAL TRADE RESPONDENT Date of last Order: Date of Ruling : 09/04/2008 The PSRC and the BOARD
More informationTHE COURTS ACT. Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act
THE COURTS ACT Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act 1. Title These rules may be cited as the Supreme Court (International
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. IPA No.15/2005. Date of decision : November 20, Vs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IPA No.15/2005 Date of decision : November 20, 2007 Sarbjyot Kaur Saluja and Ors Through: Ms.Geeta Luthra, Advocate.... Plaintiffs
More informationTHE DAY CARE CENTRES ACT, Title 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. PART II
THE DAY CARE CENTRES ACT, ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section Title 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. PART II ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF DAY CARE CENTRES 3. Registrar
More informationIN THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI. CIVIL APPEAL No. 1 of CPF Financial Services Limited Appellants -VERSUS
IN THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL No. 1 of 2015 CPF Financial Services Limited Appellants -VERSUS Retirement Benefits Authority - Respondent RULING This Ruling arises
More informationTHE ADVOCATES (DISCIPLINARY AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS) RULES. (Section 14) PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS (rules 1-2)
THE ADVOCATES (DISCIPLINARY AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS) RULES G.N. No. 135 of 1955 1. Citation (Section 14) PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS (rules 1-2) These Rules may be cited as the Advocates (Disciplinary
More information(CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A., MROSO, J.A. And MUNUO, J.A.)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A., MROSO, J.A. And MUNUO, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2004 VICTOR FRANK ISHEBABI (a person of weak mind by his next friend) MAHAMOUD
More informationFor Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy
Information or instructions: Motion affidavit & order for a new trial 1. A motion for new trial requests the court to reconsider its judgment for the reasons stated in the motion. 2. The motion should
More informationINSTRUCTION SHEET FOR CHANGING AN ADULT S NAME
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR CHANGING AN ADULT S NAME The forms presented in this packet are designed to guide you in the preparation of your change of name. You must type in the required information as it applies
More informationBROAD GUIDELINES FOR DRAFTING COMPANY PETITION/WRITTEN STATEMENT/REPLY AND ANNEXURES
BROAD GUIDELINES FOR DRAFTING COMPANY PETITION/WRITTEN STATEMENT/REPLY AND ANNEXURES By: Pradeep K. Mittal B.Com, LLB, FCS Advocate, PKMG Law Chambers Past Central Council Member, The Institute of Company
More informationAr_JlAB K~ ~bij.bb.m
/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA Ar_JlAB K~ ~bij.bb.m CIVIL CASE NO. 247 OF 1997 BASIL NICHOLAS ALEXANDER JENNINGS BRAMLY VERSUS 1. PHOKION FILIOS 2. A & F CONTRACTORS 3. EXPO TANZANIA LTD LTD. KAI!Rm~..x_A-,--.J._L
More informationDr. Nael Bunni, Chairman, Dispute Resolution Panel, Engineers Ireland, 22 Clyde Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4. December 2000.
Preamble This Arbitration Procedure has been prepared by Engineers Ireland principally for use with the Engineers Ireland Conditions of Contract for arbitrations conducted under the Arbitration Acts 1954
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM VERSUS SALMA AHMAD RESPONDENT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM ASHURA M. MASOUD APPELLANT VERSUS SALMA AHMAD RESPONDENT. Date of last Order: 14/12/2006 Date of Judgment: 14/09/2007 This is an appeal from the decision
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM ALLAN T. MATERU APPELLANT / APPLICANT VERSUS AKIBA COMMERCIAL BANK... RESPONDENT
..... --...,:. IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM ALLAN T. MATERU APPELLANT / APPLICANT VERSUS AKIBA COMMERCIAL BANK... RESPONDENT The applicant, Allan Materu, sued his former employer, Akiba
More informationPART II Procedure and Practice CHAPTER VI. General Rules regarding Applications and Affidavits
14 PART II Procedure and Practice CHAPTER VI General Rules regarding Applications and Affidavits 1. Every application to the High Court shall be a petition written in the English language. 2. Every petition
More informationCode of Procedure for Matters under the Personal Health
HEALTH MARCH 2017 Code of Procedure for Matters under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 CONTENTS PART I INTRODUCTION...1 1. Application...1 2. Purpose and Interpretation...1 3. Definitions...2
More informationTHE PROBATE RULES. (Section 9) PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS (rules 1-3)
THE PROBATE RULES (Section 9) G.Ns. Nos. 10 of 1963 107 of 1963 369 of 1963 PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS (rules 1-3) 1. Citation These Rules may be cited as the Probate Rules. 2. Interpretation In these
More informationWRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE (MANDAMUS)
SAN MATEO COUNTY LAW LIBRARY RESEARCH GUIDE #13 WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE (MANDAMUS This resource guide only provides guidance, and does not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice you need
More informationIn this omnibus application there are two basic prayers. Extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal AND leave
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: MSOFFE, J.A., KILEO, J.A., And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 98 OF 2010 RUTAGATINA C.L. APPLICANT VERSUS 1. THE ADVOCATES COMMITTEE 2. CLAVERY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM RULING
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL REVISION NO. 57 OF 2004 MAH MUD SHAMTE APPLICANT VERSUS MARY SHAMTE RESPONDENT RULING A. Shangwa,J. On 14 th May, 2004, learned counsel for the applicant
More informationA Presentation on Practice and Procedure before CESTAT. By Vipin Jain Advocate
A Presentation on Practice and Procedure before CESTAT By Vipin Jain Advocate Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. Service Tax Rules, 1994. (Alongwith Form ST-5) Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
More informationMAFIRAMBUDZI FAMILY TRUST versus LIBERTY MADZINGIRA and PANNAH NHIWATIWA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O and THE SHERIFF
1 MAFIRAMBUDZI FAMILY TRUST versus LIBERTY MADZINGIRA and PANNAH NHIWATIWA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O and THE SHERIFF HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE TAKUVA J HARARE, 28 May 2014 Opposed application Ms B Machanzi,
More information