catherine abdul hemed vs benard wilson masaka 2022 tzhc 790 11 march 2022

catherine abdul hemed vs benard wilson masaka 2022 tzhc 790 11 march 2022

The applicant failed to establish that the alleged illegality was apparent on the face of the record or of sufficient significance. The applicant also failed to provide sufficient explanation or materials to support the claim of illegality. Therefore, the application did not meet the threshold for extension of time...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
catherine abdul hemed vs benard wilson masaka 2022 tzhc 790 11 march 2022
Parties
Applicant: Catherine Abdul Hemed; Respondent: Benard Wilson Masaka
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
11 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Law of Limitation, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Matrimonial Property Division
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Law of Limitation Illegality as Ground for Extension Matrimonial Property Division

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Abdul Hemed

Applicant

Benard Wilson Masaka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal
  2. 2 Whether alleged illegality in the trial court's decision constitutes sufficient ground for extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that the alleged illegality was apparent on the face of the record or of sufficient significance. The applicant also failed to provide sufficient explanation or materials to support the claim of illegality. Therefore, the application did not meet the threshold for extension of time under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs.