CIVIL APPLICATION NO 456 01 OF 2024 ELIUS A MWAKALINGA VS DOMINA KAGARUKI AND 5 OTHERS 1

CIVIL APPLICATION NO 456 01 OF 2024 ELIUS A MWAKALINGA VS DOMINA KAGARUKI AND 5 OTHERS 1

Applicant failed to account for each day of delay for approximately five years and did not establish good cause. Counsel's negligence is not a valid ground. Illegality cannot be raised as a ground for extension before the same court under the doctrine of functus officio.

Citation
CIVIL APPLICATION NO 456 01 OF 2024 ELIUS A MWAKALINGA VS DOMINA KAGARUKI AND 5 OTHERS 1
Parties
Applicant: Elius A. Mwakalinga; 1st Respondent: Domina Kagaruki; 2nd Respondent: Farida F. Mbarak; 3rd Respondent: Farida Ahmed Mabarak; 4th Respondent: Tanzania Building Agency; 5th Respondent: The Commissioner for Lands; 6th Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Re Hear Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Right to Be Heard, Functus Officio, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Technical Delay
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Right to Be Heard Functus Officio Illegality as Ground for Extension Technical 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elius A. Mwakalinga

Applicant

Domina Kagaruki

1st Respondent

Farida F. Mbarak

2nd Respondent

Farida Ahmed Mabarak

3rd Respondent

Tanzania Building Agency

4th Respondent

The Commissioner for Lands

5th Respondent

The Honourable Attorney General

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Re Hear Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to re-hear appeal
  2. 2 Whether applicant accounted for each day of delay
  3. 3 Whether ground of illegality is available before the same court under functus officio

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to account for each day of delay for approximately five years and did not establish good cause. Counsel's negligence is not a valid ground. Illegality cannot be raised as a ground for extension before the same court under the doctrine of functus officio.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs