2Final Ruling Ephate Kibiti

2Final Ruling Ephate Kibiti

The applicant failed to account for the inordinate delay of nearly two years and did not demonstrate any illegality apparent on the face of the record. The requirements for extension of time were not met.

Citation
2Final Ruling Ephate Kibiti
Parties
Applicant: Ephate Kibiti John; 1st Respondent: Mwanga Hakika Microfinance Bank Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Debt Star & Auctioneer Mart; 3rd Respondent: Suma JKT Auction Mart; 4th Respondent: Justine Peter Shirima
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Accountability for Delay
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Illegality as Ground for Extension Accountability for 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ephate Kibiti John

Applicant

Mwanga Hakika Microfinance Bank Ltd

1st Respondent

Debt Star & Auctioneer Mart

2nd Respondent

Suma JKT Auction Mart

3rd Respondent

Justine Peter Shirima

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal
  2. 2 Whether alleged illegality on the face of the record justified extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for the inordinate delay of nearly two years and did not demonstrate any illegality apparent on the face of the record. The requirements for extension of time were not met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time is dismissed for lack of merit
  • No order as to costs