akurino r kyando vs hamis rajabu kakolwa another 2023 tzhclandd 27 27 january 2023

akurino r kyando vs hamis rajabu kakolwa another 2023 tzhclandd 27 27 january 2023

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay, but the ground of illegality regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is sufficiently weighty and apparent on the face of the record to constitute sufficient cause for extension of time. The application is granted on this basis alone.

Citation
akurino r kyando vs hamis rajabu kakolwa another 2023 tzhclandd 27 27 january 2023
Parties
Applicant: Akurino R. Kyando; 1st Respondent: Hamisi Rajabu Kakolwa; 2nd Respondent: Gordon Nahum Kiluswa
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Revision
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision, Illegality, Locus Standi, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English

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 2 Authorities cited 17 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 to File Revision

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to file revision
  2. 2 Whether illegality exists sufficient to warrant extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay, but the ground of illegality regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is sufficiently weighty and apparent on the face of the record to constitute sufficient cause for extension of time. The application is granted on this basis alone.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Applicant is granted extension of time to lodge a revision before the court within thirty days from the date of the ruling.