africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • All jurisdictions →

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[1999] TZHC 165Tanzania

Chikuku Koroto vs A.R Sululu (Misc. Civil Cause No. 83 of 1998) [1999] TZHC 165 (18 February 1999)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

IN THB HIGH. GOUR'r OF TAi~Z.ANIJ.. (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGIS'rRY) J..'r DAR ES SALAAM MISCEJ:.~lf..O..QS CIVIL CAUSE N0.83 OF 1998 CHIKUKU KOROTO ')00000001,10000000,:,oooooooooooot>oo Versus A.R. SULULU 000000000?000000000000000000000006 R U L I N G CHIP ETA, Jo : APPLICANT RESPONDENT . This is an application for review•of the Ruling of this court delivered on 30th June,, 1998 in an application by the applicant for. leave to appeal to this court out of time and for stay of execution • • That application was dismissed on the ground that the applicant was guilty of gross negligence and inaction in dealing with the matter. In the present application, the applicant has raised the same matters which he canvassed in the earlier application. He has added that the trial primary court had no jurisdiction • . ("'~ A decision of a tribunal can only be reviewed by such tribunal ~ r ' - thG t';roun.d c9f discovery . o:( n0i,.,r _:,nd. importan.t . \ ) matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time the decision was made. In the present case, the applicant has revealed no new important, matter or evidence at all. He only repeated what he said ,in the earli.er cpplication. As for the .juridiction of the trial primary court, the applic;:mt himself conceded that the area in question is unsurveyd laJldo The primary court_, therefore, had jurisdiction in the matter • fi

\ ) 2 For these reasons, this application for review has no merit whatsoever. It is accordingly dismissed with costso Bo D. CHIPETA J"UDGE Ruling delivered in Chambers in presence of the parties this 18th day of February, 19990 B. Do CHIPETA JUDGE 18/2/1999 Ap:elicant ~ My ·-1ord, give notice of appeal. Court; The applicant will first have to seek leave of this Court to appeal to the Court of Appeal within required time. B. D. CHIPETA JUDGE 18/2/1999 __

Discussion