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[1998] TZHC 2187Tanzania

Ismail Hembela vs Ramadhani Shomari (PC Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2187 (22 October 1998)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

I ,""",. (DAR ES SA!AAH DISTRICT HFGL3TRY) J..T D!f{ J.iiS SAllu~1 • ........... ,.,. ...... 1---..-- ... '?..-.-.-...--- . , I ,SlvLA.I L }I].';?{£.{iLA. • o " o o •· o ~ o t e ') " o :, • o .:, " .s o ~ c. ci o o o o o • o c:, 1 • ,, o • oJ} 1 PELJ.J.l'JT nAl'L/..DF.ANI SFOMARI O • 0 0 O O O O ♦ ~ 0 O O O • < • G O o O O ~ o ~ O O U O o o O O .mSJ?ONDJNT RULING --------·-·--·--

'l'he. applicant fe.,;,.turefl a,s th(o defendr.t:;1..t at his trial in a suit that the respo- ndent insti tr:ted ot tlJ.,j Moroir Urban J?rimr.ry Co1.,rt for recovc,ry of n piece .of land. 'l1he trir-11 court found for the lJl.'.lintiff. 'I'he defondr=,r,t appelcd;. he succe- c'.d in the app0al to the District Court. In n fu.rthe:r appeal to this C0urt the decision of the District Court wn.s ,set :::dde . " n:n.d tl1ot of t!.~~ tri21.l 1-1rimt.r:/ cour·t vns- restored. 1'h< e.p;,licm:t no\·: sG:d-cs le.?ve of this Court to file an appeal before the highest court of the land. The chamber summons does not indic~.te tz;,) ncture of th2 points cf law or points of mixed lc-.w and fact, this being a third D.p1x,D.l In his e.fi'idavit the applfo1:;rit simply says that r,oint1J of l.:,1--r Dre involved :i.11 -th; intcmcled appe2.l. It is in his Hritten .rgum6nts ti1D.t. the, applic,:mt brings ur, the issue of limitaticn of ,_ctions4 Ee contr.mds that he hus be-':D in continous Us(:: of tbc suit Lmd since 1964. The.t contG:ntion .i,2,s dismissed by tlrn tr'icl court which f,_ound o.s f2ct th:::t tc ap})licu1t was allowed t::; uso t.b.e land c-:,s ;:i, ten,?-..Ylt et :.d.11 in 1990.. Th2t finding W,lS uph::,ld by this court. .';:h~t finding does not, in ::my case, involve a point of 12,.w; · it is pureby one of facto In my judgm,mt, o.nd after- h[tVing t0u<::cn due account of the rcspond.-.::nt's cou..r1ter nff1.'c1,..,y4.1. ,:·.l - .;,( ... .J.. l,-' there is no point of law thr.~t I may certify t'o be sufficiently strong to 'I'he applic::,tion is dismit;sed l•:i.th c01:-;ts. Delivered. In person Ab.sent For A:pplic:mt l

  • : For Re:;spondi,nt . J..J, ! I i J , 22/10/1998

Discussion