ben edson mendro vs lauden a mwatonoka 2020 tzhc 4086 27 november 2020

ben edson mendro vs lauden a mwatonoka 2020 tzhc 4086 27 november 2020

The appellant was not denied the right to be heard as he was present at the initial hearing and subsequently absented himself without justification. The DLHT considered the appellant's affidavit, and no sufficient grounds for extension of time were established.

Citation
ben edson mendro vs lauden a mwatonoka 2020 tzhc 4086 27 november 2020
Parties
Appellant: Ben Edson Mendro; Respondent: Lauden A. Mwatonoka
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Right to Be Heard, Service of Summons, Condonation of Delay
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Right to Be Heard Service of Summons Condonation of Delay

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ben Edson Mendro

Appellant

Lauden A. Mwatonoka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was denied the right to be heard due to lack of service of summons
  2. 2 Whether the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in not considering the appellant's affidavit

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not denied the right to be heard as he was present at the initial hearing and subsequently absented himself without justification. The DLHT considered the appellant's affidavit, and no sufficient grounds for extension of time were established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit.
  • The appellant shall pay costs to the respondent.