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 2197Tanzania

Shani Ayubu vs Ibrahim Osman Mohamed (Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2197 (4 September 1998)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

DAR ES Si'..::,...·-.l'•i DISTRICT REG:::.JTRY --; 'T' · ;1 : n ;:;'-::: :, .: L i ,-, 1'-'1 -, .... -4 ...., ~ ....- . ~ --'~ ..... JJ,1. j :!.,rl. (FrDm Origirnl fWi 1 S Court F::i:SU ·,J Cj_viJ Case No.21/92) SHANI AYURJ V.SRSU'.'3 RULING The applicant is t';e: .:.::.:.':2n,i;2nt j_r:; Civil Case i'Jo.70 of 1997 at the Court of Resident rv,agi::t:·::.t:.::, ~~is,,,tu. After he had called four ·1.':.-n2232s iL (ii!', .:L_j:'---'Lc.0 he filed a chamber a}-,Pl.ic::-til· n praying i:L·,t the =,:':lceediri..gs be stnyed until Criruinal C·:se Na.1089 :<: i-:r:,6 :1t the application was ::;i_sn.ised ;::ind o.n app:::J.1 against the order disr.1issing t~1Jt sppli.c,~rci,:-,n w:::is itself dismissed by this Cour-t, K:1123.::y:::, ? • This c:)U:;: 0 t i::,:,J;- that the Crilliinal Case has LJ ::::.ir12c t rel.c've:.::1c2 -C') t'.:12 civil c 9 se whic·h, at any r9te, has r-e9.ched :::tL 3.,v'.lnced st8.t,e. It is froIT: that decision ·that the a ::•r1L.c.:.::·.:.· ,3•2GEs leave to appeal to the Ccurt of Appeal. No•,1 r t::iis a1.=-1Jlicaticn relo:Ls T,D 8. second aj,)pea.1,. The appJ_ic,:,nL has to establish ·that there are points of lm, c: r -. U.x,::=:c-t l::nv and fact v,rhich will be certified to the >: ;:rt of A.PPec,l. I-'Jy exan,i n:~ ti.; ::.1 ,:: :'.:' th-= 3.ffidavi t evidence supporti1.:.g th:.:: .:::.:;-lic:-:tion ::';.s :.::2111 c.::3 written ,, arguments contain no raore than his b-::~L,i' -t.:.·:--'.; h,=:: has overwhealming ehances of succ2.:;s if tiij::; ::1 __ ;.l"'..·'.:=:. c~_on will succeed. the respondent, has pointe.-: out th::: iT.e:r:::: .:=:l:~ , --~.::...)n that this court cr:r-2d wn.0 :,:-: ' ; cannot be consicL,:-.::'1 to o,.:.: law and fact. So that ti12 ~'l.PPlicatis n- n,ust fail as it is doomed to. .... _..., __ _

... 2 In the re$ult the application i~ dismissed with costs. Delivered. In person: For Arplic3rrt Mr •. Ukwonga Advocate for Re sporn.10 nt. J ~ M. J.ViACriNJA JUDGE 4/9/98 CGrtified true copy of the Origi::.,al.

Discussion