19980128 TZHC Tabora
- Citation
- 19980128 TZHC Tabora
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 28 January 1998
- Posture
- Criminal / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 28 January 1998
- Posture
- Criminal / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant failed to show sufficient cause for delay and the intended appeal raised no point of law, making it meritless.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
George Irgasa
ApplicantRangi Paulo and others
Respondents03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to illness and provided medical documents as proof.
- Respondent
- The respondents denied that the applicant was sick.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of appellate procedure
Leave to appeal out of time may be granted if sufficient cause for delay is shown.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant failed to show sufficient cause for delay and the intended appeal raised no point of law, making it meritless.
Court disposition
application dismissed with costs
- Application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 28 January 1998
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 28 January 1998
m TBE me I1 COURT OF 'b\..l.'IZ,:t.1.iIA. .AT TA.BO];~ lYiISC. CRI.1.,,li..JIL APPL;,·.i:o .47 /96 !J.~ TEE 1,lA.T.PER OF SllIJ.iYA-i-•Gil. DISTRICT COURT CRI.hIJ.iA.L AFPFJ:.L .t10. 58 OF 1995 cV'iD J.>IJ.',DC) PRh.iARY COURT oma. CR!l11IJ.~.Al, Chl.SE .. l,O., 119/ 9'1- J..l'ID I.L:1 THE foJ..TI1ER OF~' APPLIC,'....TI0.1., FOR LF.iVE TO iU'PE:Ui OUT OF TllE GED R1 E J:1G.A.SA RU L I l-1 G This is a.::.. application to appeal 01.tt of' tiiue by the applica,-,t, G George Irgasa.· His reason for dela.Yi".lr; to appeal o.., tii£1e is tb.at he vvas-· sick. He te,.,deretl oopies-·of .medical clri.ts to prove tl-ds,. Tlle respo~de'Ylts, r.'a,:.gi Paulo and others denied that the applicant was sick~ The applicant had··cha:rged -bhe respor,cler,ts for Halicio1,1.s-·Daii1age to Property. The 8 flespo:ntl.e}1ts denied the charge• -·Th-e applicant testified alone arid calletl no wi tnesse'$. So··did the respo-nde:nts.. 111e t:rial court visited the sce'.'1 e cf O'.l'.'iinc and found r,o•·sweet potatoes uprooted. It · acquitted the resrond-e,,vso The a,p:plica,:nts' appeal to the district t,ourt •· was dis,1issed,. The i·..,te~1ded second appeal lacks !11erit. It :raises no point of law. So it is useless to allow the applica..,.,t to appeal out of t:Lne. Therefore this applioatio,,, j_s di mJj ssed with costs. /1 ;ff~ L.B. Iv1CH0HE,
JUDGE
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.