akurino r kyando vs hamis rajabu kakolwa another 2022 tzhclandd 12780 27 january 2022

akurino r kyando vs hamis rajabu kakolwa another 2022 tzhclandd 12780 27 january 2022

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay but established a ground of illegality regarding the Ward Tribunal's lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The illegality is apparent on the face of the record and constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time.

Citation
akurino r kyando vs hamis rajabu kakolwa another 2022 tzhclandd 12780 27 january 2022
Parties
Applicant: Akurino R. Kyando; 1st Respondent: Hamisi Rajabu Kakolwa; 2nd Respondent: Gordon Nahum Kiluswa
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision, Jurisdiction, Illegality
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Revision Jurisdiction Illegality

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akurino R. Kyando

Applicant

Hamisi Rajabu Kakolwa

1st Respondent

Gordon Nahum Kiluswa

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to file revision
  2. 2 Whether illegality exists in the decision of the Ward Tribunal due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay but established a ground of illegality regarding the Ward Tribunal's lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The illegality is apparent on the face of the record and constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Applicant granted leave to lodge a revision before the Court within thirty days from the date of ruling