+255742850702 Get Counsel →
Civil Application No. 12 of 2012

Dawson Ishengoma v Tanzania Revenue Authority

Judgement Court of Appeal of Tanzania 2012

Summary of Judgment

Facts

The applicant, Dawson Ishengoma, had earlier lost Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2011 before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Mwanza, in a judgment delivered on 29th May 2012 by a bench comprising Rutakangwa, Kileo, and Oriyo, JJ.A. Following that decision, the applicant filed Civil Application No. 12 of 2012 seeking a review of that judgment against the respondent, Tanzania Revenue Authority.

Issues

The central procedural question before the Court was whether the applicant's application for review should be permitted to be withdrawn under Rule 58(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, and, if so, what order should be made as to costs.

Arguments

For the applicant, Mr. Salum Magongo, learned Advocate, made an informal application under Rule 58(1) of the Rules seeking withdrawal of the application for review. He further urged the Court not to award costs against his client should the withdrawal be granted. For the respondent, Mr. Salvatory Switi, learned Advocate, did not resist the application for withdrawal and likewise did not press for an order of costs against the applicant.

Holding

The Court, comprising Rutakangwa, Kaijage, and Mussa, JJ.A., granted the application for withdrawal. Given that the respondent did not oppose the withdrawal and neither party pressed for costs, the Court marked the application as withdrawn pursuant to Rule 58(3) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Significance

This order illustrates the straightforward procedural mechanism under Rule 58 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, by which a party may withdraw an application before the Court of Appeal with the concurrence, or at least non-opposition, of the opposing party. It confirms that where withdrawal is unopposed and neither side presses for costs, the Court will readily grant the withdrawal and direct that each party bear its own costs, without delving into the substantive merits of the underlying application for review.

NEXT STEPS

Questions on
this ruling?

Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.