bruno wenceslaus nyalifa vs permanent secretary ministry of home affairs another 2018 tzca 297 13 december 2018

bruno wenceslaus nyalifa vs permanent secretary ministry of home affairs another 2018 tzca 297 13 december 2018

The appellant failed to account for the period between the striking out of the previous application and filing for extension of time; therefore, sufficient cause for delay was not established and the High Court's dismissal was proper.

Citation
bruno wenceslaus nyalifa vs permanent secretary ministry of home affairs another 2018 tzca 297 13 december 2018
Parties
Appellant: Bruno Wenceslaus Nyalifa; 1st Respondent: The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs; 2nd Respondent: The Honorable Attorney General
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Affidavit Evidence, Procedural Requirements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Extension of Time Judicial Review Affidavit Evidence Procedural Requirements

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruno Wenceslaus Nyalifa

Appellant

The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs

1st Respondent

The Honorable Attorney General

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in disregarding annexed documents to the affidavit for not being tendered as exhibits
  2. 2 Whether the appellant showed sufficient cause for delay in filing application for extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to account for the period between the striking out of the previous application and filing for extension of time; therefore, sufficient cause for delay was not established and the High Court's dismissal was proper.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Each party to bear their own costs