DENIS METHEW MSANZYA VS MASTERMIND TOBACCO T LTD MISC

DENIS METHEW MSANZYA VS MASTERMIND TOBACCO T LTD MISC

The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable and sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of one year in filing the application for extension of time to set aside the default judgment. The court found that the applicant was properly served with summons and that negligence or technical errors in previous applications do not constitute sufficient cause. The alleged illegality in service of summons was not a sufficient ground in the context of this application.

Citation
DENIS METHEW MSANZYA VS MASTERMIND TOBACCO T LTD MISC
Parties
Applicant: Denis Mathew Msanzya; 1st Respondent: Mastermind Tobacco (T) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: CDJ Classic Group Limited
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Default Judgment, Service of Summons, Discretion of Court
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Default Judgment Service of Summons Discretion of Court

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denis Mathew Msanzya

Applicant

Mastermind Tobacco (T) Ltd

1st Respondent

CDJ Classic Group Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has advanced reasonable and sufficient cause for extension of time to set aside a default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the application was lodged without undue delay

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable and sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of one year in filing the application for extension of time to set aside the default judgment. The court found that the applicant was properly served with summons and that negligence or technical errors in previous applications do not constitute sufficient cause. The alleged illegality in service of summons was not a sufficient ground in the context of this application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to set aside default judgment is dismissed with costs in favour of respondents
  • Right of appeal explained to parties