Share
Ololosokwan Village Council and Ors. v A.G. of The United Republic of Tanzania (Reference 10 of 2017) [2019] EACJ 7 (6 March 2019) (First Instance Division)
- Citation
- [2019] EACJ 7
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Justice
- Panel
- Ntezilyayo J
- Case number
- Reference 10 of 2017
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Justice
- Panel
- Ntezilyayo J
- Case number
- Reference 10 of 2017
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court found that the Applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient reasons for adjournment, as no evidence was provided of hardship in securing the expert witness. The cited Rules 55(3)(b) and 66(1) were deemed inapplicable to the present circumstances. The only basis for adjournment would be the Court's inherent powers under Rule 1(2), which require sufficient justification. Since the Applicants had ample time since November 2018 to secure the expert and did not show any disinclination or inability of the expert to carry out the required land survey, the application for adjournment was disallowed.
Court disposition
application_disallowed
Orders
- The application for adjournment is disallowed.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ololosokwan Village Council
ApplicantOloirien Village Council
ApplicantKirtalo Village Council
ApplicantArash Village Council
ApplicantAttorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Adjournment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient reasons for adjournment of the hearing.
- 02
Whether the cited Rules 55(3)(b) and 66(1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure are applicable to the present application.
- 03
Whether the Court should exercise its inherent powers under Rule 1(2) to grant the adjournment.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Applicants argued for adjournment on the basis of needing time to secure an expert witness for a land survey, citing Rules 55(3)(b) and 66(1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure to support their request.
- Respondent
- The Respondent opposed the application, contending that the Applicants had sufficient time since November 2018 to secure the expert witness and failed to demonstrate any hardship or sufficient reason for adjournment.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 1(2) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure
Adjournment may only be granted in exercise of the Court's inherent powers, subject to demonstration of sufficient reasons.
- 02
Rule 55(3)(b) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure
Rule 55(3)(b) pertains to the duty of the Court to conduct hearings expeditiously, save for exceptional circumstances.
- 03
Rule 66(1) of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure
Rule 66(1) applies only where hearing has commenced, which is not the case here.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court found that the Applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient reasons for adjournment, as no evidence was provided of hardship in securing the expert witness. The cited Rules 55(3)(b) and 66(1) were deemed inapplicable to the present circumstances. The only basis for adjournment would be the Court's inherent powers under Rule 1(2), which require sufficient justification. Since the Applicants had ample time since November 2018 to secure the expert and did not show any disinclination or inability of the expert to carry out the required land survey, the application for adjournment was disallowed.
Obiter and limits
- The Court reiterates the importance of expeditious conduct of hearings, as provided under Rule 55(3)(a).
- No order as to costs is made in this application.
Court disposition
application_disallowed
- The application for adjournment is disallowed.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Justice
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Justice
Judgment
IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA
FIRST INSTANCE DIVISION
(Coram: Monica K. Mugenyi, PJ; Faustin Ntezilyayo, DPJ; Fakihi A. *Jundu; Audace Ngiye & Charles Nyachae, JJ)*
REFERENCE NO. 10 OF 2017
- 1. OLOLOSOKWAN VILLAGE COUNCIL - 2. OLOIRIEN VILLAGE COUNCIL - 3. KIRTALO VILLAGE COUNCIL - 4. ARASH VILLAGE COUNCIL
. APPLICANTS
VERSUS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA ...................... RESPONDENT
6<sup>TH</sup> MARCH 2019
Application No. 10 of 2017
Page 1
reux
RULING OF THE COURT
- 1. We carefully listened to both Parties in this application for adjournment. - 2. We find Rule 55(3)(b) of the Court's Rules of Procedure ('the Rules') as cited by learned Counsel for the Applicants inapplicable to this case. In our view, that Rule pertains to the duty upon the Court to conduct hearings expeditiously as detailed in Rule $55(3)(a)$ , save for exceptional circumstances. - 3. Rule $66(1)$ that was cited by the same Party is not applicable either as it pertains to a matter where hearing has commenced. That is not the case presently. - 4. In the premises, this matter may only be adjourned in exercise of the Court's inherent powers under Rule 1(2) of the Rules, subject to the demonstration of sufficient reasons therefor. - 5. In the instant case, no evidence was adduced of the hardship experienced in securing the expert witness the Applicants seek to call. The Applicants had ample time since November 2018 to secure this expert and/ or demonstrate his/ her disinclination to carry out the required land survey but failed or omitted to do so. - 6. In the result, this Application is disallowed. We make no Order as to costs. - It is so ordered.
Application No. 10 of 2017
Page 2
rent
Dated, signed and delivered at Arusha this 5<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2019.
HON. LADY JUSTICE MONICA K. MUGENYI PRINCIPAL JUDGE HON. DR. JUSTICE FAUSTIN NTEZILYAYO DEPUTY PRINCIPAL JUDGE HON. JUSTICE FAKIHI A. JUNDU JUDGE HON. DR. JUSTICE AUDACE NGIYE JUDGE HON. JUSTICE CHARLES NYACHAE
JUDGE
Application No. 10 of 2017
Page 3
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.