ahmed mabrouk another vs mrs rafikihawa mohamed sadik another 2023 tzca 17289 31 may 2023

ahmed mabrouk another vs mrs rafikihawa mohamed sadik another 2023 tzca 17289 31 may 2023

The single Justice correctly exercised discretion in granting extension of time as there was an arguable point of law regarding illegality in the High Court's decision; however, awarding costs to the 1st respondent without assigning reasons was improper given the respondent's own delay.

Citation
ahmed mabrouk another vs mrs rafikihawa mohamed sadik another 2023 tzca 17289 31 may 2023
Parties
1st Applicant: Ahmed Mabrouk; 2nd Applicant: Bi Najma Hassanali Kanji; 1st Respondent: Mrs. Rafikihawa Mohamed Sadik; 2nd Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Reference / Ruling on Application for Reference Against Decision of Single Justice Granting Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed except as to costs; each party to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Award of Costs, Revision Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Illegality as Ground for Extension Award of Costs Revision Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Mabrouk

1st Applicant

Bi Najma Hassanali Kanji

2nd Applicant

Mrs. Rafikihawa Mohamed Sadik

1st Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Reference / Ruling on Application for Reference Against Decision of Single Justice Granting Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the single Justice erred in granting extension of time based on alleged illegality
  2. 2 Whether the award of costs to the 1st respondent was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The single Justice correctly exercised discretion in granting extension of time as there was an arguable point of law regarding illegality in the High Court's decision; however, awarding costs to the 1st respondent without assigning reasons was improper given the respondent's own delay.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed except as to costs; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed on merits except for the ground relating to costs.
  • Order that each party shall bear its own costs.