farida f mbarak another vs domina kagaruki others 2021 tzca 600 20 october 2021

farida f mbarak another vs domina kagaruki others 2021 tzca 600 20 october 2021

The applicants failed to state sufficient grounds for extension of time in the notice of motion or supporting affidavit as required by law. The explanations for delay were only provided in submissions, which cannot be acted upon. Ignorance of law or confusion about the enabling provision is not a valid ground for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
farida f mbarak another vs domina kagaruki others 2021 tzca 600 20 october 2021
Parties
Applicant: Farida F. Mbarak; Applicant: Farida Ahmed Mbaraka; Respondent: Domina Kagaruki; Respondent: Tanzania Building Agency; Respondent: The Commissioner for Lands; Respondent: Honourable The Attorney General; Respondent: Elius Mwakalinga
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Reference / Ruling on Reference From Single Justice's Decision Refusing Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for reference dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Review of Judgment, Judicial Discretion, Natural Justice, Ignorance of Law
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Extension of Time Review of Judgment Judicial Discretion Natural Justice Ignorance of Law

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 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farida F. Mbarak

Applicant

Farida Ahmed Mbaraka

Applicant

Domina Kagaruki

Respondent

Tanzania Building Agency

Respondent

The Commissioner for Lands

Respondent

Honourable The Attorney General

Respondent

Elius Mwakalinga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Reference / Ruling on Reference From Single Justice's Decision Refusing Extension of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicants demonstrated good cause for extension of time to apply for review
  2. 2 Whether the grounds for extension of time were properly stated in the notice of motion or supporting affidavit
  3. 3 Whether the single Justice erred in refusing extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to state sufficient grounds for extension of time in the notice of motion or supporting affidavit as required by law. The explanations for delay were only provided in submissions, which cannot be acted upon. Ignorance of law or confusion about the enabling provision is not a valid ground for extension. The single Justice exercised discretion properly and the refusal to extend time was justified.

Court Disposition

Application for reference dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for reference is dismissed
  • Applicants to pay costs