CIVIL APPLICATION NO 760 17 OF 2022 ALOYCE KISENGA VS GHALIB AHMED HAMOUD 7 OTHERS

CIVIL APPLICATION NO 760 17 OF 2022 ALOYCE KISENGA VS GHALIB AHMED HAMOUD 7 OTHERS

Applicant was not a party to the proceedings affecting his property and was not heard, constituting a breach of natural justice. The property at issue was the same as referenced in prior proceedings. Illegality and denial of right to be heard justify extension of time.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CIVIL APPLICATION NO 760 17 OF 2022 ALOYCE KISENGA VS GHALIB AHMED HAMOUD 7 OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Aloyce Kisenga; 1st Respondent: Ghalib Ahmed Hamoud; 2nd Respondent: Ramadhani Kitenge (Administrator of Estate of the late Hamadi Ramadhani Manara); 3rd Respondent: Kitena Ramadhani Manara; 4th Respondent: Sunday Ramadhani Manara; 5th Respondent: Mgeni Ramadhani Manara; 6th Respondent: Kassim Ramadhani Manara; 7th Respondent: Manara Hamrani Manara; 8th Respondent: Moez Jaferali Morbiwalla
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Right to Be Heard, Natural Justice, Revision Proceedings
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Right to Be Heard Natural Justice Revision Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aloyce Kisenga

Applicant

Ghalib Ahmed Hamoud

1st Respondent

Ramadhani Kitenge (Administrator of Estate of the late Hamadi Ramadhani Manara)

2nd Respondent

Kitena Ramadhani Manara

3rd Respondent

Sunday Ramadhani Manara

4th Respondent

Mgeni Ramadhani Manara

5th Respondent

Kassim Ramadhani Manara

6th Respondent

Manara Hamrani Manara

7th Respondent

Moez Jaferali Morbiwalla

8th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to file revision
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's right to be heard was infringed by not being joined as a party in Land Case No. 271 of 2013

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant was not a party to the proceedings affecting his property and was not heard, constituting a breach of natural justice. The property at issue was the same as referenced in prior proceedings. Illegality and denial of right to be heard justify extension of time.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Applicant to lodge application for revision within sixty (60) days