mariam mgoto another vs frank maningi 2022 tzhclandd 220 25 march 2022

mariam mgoto another vs frank maningi 2022 tzhclandd 220 25 march 2022

The appellants failed to account for each day of delay in their affidavit, which is a mandatory requirement for extension of time. The alleged grounds of illegality and irregularity were not properly pleaded in the affidavit and thus could not be considered. The right to be heard was not violated as both parties made written submissions. The principle of overriding justice does not apply where statutory requirements are not met.

Citation
mariam mgoto another vs frank maningi 2022 tzhclandd 220 25 march 2022
Parties
1st Appellant: Mariam Mgoto; 2nd Appellant: Julia N. Byakwaga (as administratrix of the estate of the late Seleiman Byakwaga); Respondent: Frank Maningi
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal Ruling
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Restoration of Dismissed Application, Right to Be Heard, Principle of Overriding Justice
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Restoration of Dismissed Application Right to Be Heard Principle of Overriding Justice

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mariam Mgoto

1st Appellant

Julia N. Byakwaga (as administratrix of the estate of the late Seleiman Byakwaga)

2nd Appellant

Frank Maningi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in dismissing Misc. Application No. 266 of 2020 instead of striking it out
  2. 2 Whether the appellants provided sufficient reasons for extension of time to restore Land Application No. 98 of 2007
  3. 3 Whether the right to be heard was denied

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to account for each day of delay in their affidavit, which is a mandatory requirement for extension of time. The alleged grounds of illegality and irregularity were not properly pleaded in the affidavit and thus could not be considered. The right to be heard was not violated as both parties made written submissions. The principle of overriding justice does not apply where statutory requirements are not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs