hamis dogan vs pius audy sacky 2 others 2024 tzhc 16 11 january 2024

hamis dogan vs pius audy sacky 2 others 2024 tzhc 16 11 january 2024

The applicant failed to establish good cause for extension of time as he did not account for each day of delay, the delay was inordinate, there was no apparent illegality on the face of the record, and the functus officio doctrine did not apply. The disputed matters in the previous and current applications were different in parties, land size, and presiding officers.

Citation
hamis dogan vs pius audy sacky 2 others 2024 tzhc 16 11 january 2024
Parties
Applicant: Hamis Dogan; 1st Respondent: Pius Audy Sacky; 2nd Respondent: Selius Leonady Mtepa; 3rd Respondent: Kadumi Shija
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
11 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals, Functus Officio, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Delay and Diligence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Appeals Functus Officio Illegality as Ground for Extension Delay and Diligence

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamis Dogan

Applicant

Pius Audy Sacky

1st Respondent

Selius Leonady Mtepa

2nd Respondent

Kadumi Shija

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established good cause for extension of time to file an appeal against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether alleged illegality or technical delay constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish good cause for extension of time as he did not account for each day of delay, the delay was inordinate, there was no apparent illegality on the face of the record, and the functus officio doctrine did not apply. The disputed matters in the previous and current applications were different in parties, land size, and presiding officers.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs