CIVIL APPLICATION NO 139 02 OF 2024 AZANIA BANK LIMITED VS PETER MUHALE LOLO 2 OTHERS

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay and did not establish any illegality in the impugned decision; therefore, no sufficient cause was shown to warrant extension of time.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: CIVIL APPLICATION NO 139 02 OF 2024 AZANIA BANK LIMITED VS PETER MUHALE LOLO 2 OTHERS
Parties: Applicant: Azania Bank Limited; 1st Respondent: Peter Muhalle Lolo; 2nd Respondent: Mangwembe 2011 Co. Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Wilfred John (The Administrator of the estate of the late Fredrick Wilfred)
Court: TANZLII
Jurisdiction: Tanzania
Judgment Date: 1 January 2024
Procedural Posture: Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Illegality as Ground for Extension, General Damages, Pleadings
Source Language: english

Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Illegality as Ground for Extension General Damages Pleadings

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Azania Bank Limited

Applicant

Peter Muhalle Lolo

1st Respondent

Mangwembe 2011 Co. Ltd

2nd Respondent

Wilfred John (The Administrator of the estate of the late Fredrick Wilfred)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the applicant showed good cause for extension of time to file notice of appeal and application for leave to appeal
2 Whether alleged illegalities in the lower court's decision justified extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay and did not establish any illegality in the impugned decision; therefore, no sufficient cause was shown to warrant extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

Application for extension of time is dismissed in its entirety.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.